Brantley Land & Timber, LLC v. W & D Investments, Inc.
316 Ga. App. 277
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- W & D Investments entered separate agreements in 2007 with Brantley and Hawk's to install water systems for their developments.
- W&D sued Hawk's (2010) and Brantley (2011) for nonpayment under the agreements.
- Developers counterclaimed that W&D lacked a required utility contractor license under OCGA § 43-14-8.2 and that the contracts were unenforceable.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for W&D and denied the Developers' summary judgment on the Amended Counterclaim.
- On appeal, the issue is whether regulatory licensing applies to the water systems W&D installed on the Developers' properties.
- Appellate review focuses on whether water systems at issue fall within the scope of “utility contracting” under OCGA Chapter 14 and thus require a license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a utility contractor license was required for the water systems. | W&D lacked license under OCGA 43-14-8.2; contracts unenforceable. | License required; lack of license voids the contracts and requires repayment of sums. | No; water systems here were less than five feet underground, not within utility contracting under the statute. |
| Whether the five-foot threshold governs whether systems are utility contracts. | Water systems should be treated as utility contracting regardless of depth. | Only systems at least five feet underground qualify as utility contracting. | Water systems less than five feet deep are not utility systems under OCGA 43-14-2 (17) (A); no license needed. |
| Whether the license requirement affects enforceability of the Agreements. | If license required, agreements unenforceable; W&D insufficiently licensed. | Licensing requirement applies; contracts unenforceable and damages recoverable. | Agreements enforceable; license not required for the specific water systems at issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernstein v. Peters, 68 Ga. App. 218 (Ga. App. 1942) (contracts void if license statute is public-regulation based)
- Robinson v. Colonial Discount Co., 106 Ga. App. 274 (Ga. App. 1962) (public-regulation rationale for licensing)
- Bowers v. Howell, 203 Ga. App. 636 (Ga. App. 1992) (licensing as public-interest regulation)
- JR Constr./Electric v. Ordner Constr. Co., 294 Ga. App. 453 (Ga. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation of utility contracting framework)
- Kerese v. State, 10 Ga. 95 (Ga. 1851) (plain meaning rule for statutes)
- Speedway Motorsports v. Pinnacle Bank, 315 Ga. App. 320 (Ga. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation starting with text; avoid construction if plain)