In September 2013, Ugo Mattera entered into a written construction contract with Baja Properties, LLC. Stephen Chad Golden, the sole owner of Baja Properties, signed the contract and addendums on Baja Properties’s behalf. Pursuant to the contract, Baja Properties agreed to build a house for Ugo Mattera on land he and Kellie Mattera owned. Baja Properties completed some of the construction, but disputes developed, and Ugo Mattera terminated the contract before the house was completed. Stephen Golden did not have a Georgia builder’s or contractor’s license when the parties entered into the contract or when the work was performed.
In February 2015, Baja Properties sued the Matteras for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and claim of lien. The Matteras answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and negligence. Ugo Mattera then filed a separate action against Stephen Golden and James Golden (as alleged owners and/or managers of Baja Properties), asserting claims for negligence and fraud. The trial court consolidated the two cases.
The Matteras moved for summary judgment on Baja Properties’s claims against them, asserting that OCGA § 43-41-17

bars an unlicensed contractor from enforcing in law or equity a contract for the performance of work for which a license is required. The trial court granted the Matteras’ motion for summary judgment on all of Baja Properties’s claims, finding that the claims were barred by OCGA § 43-41-17 (b). Baja Properties appealed.
Judge Mercier Baja Properties contends that the trial court erred by holding that the claims it asserts against the Matteras are barred by OCGA § 43-41-17 (b), when its claims come within an exemption set out in OCGA § 43-41-17 (h). The contention is without merit.
OCGA § 43-41-17

(a) provides, in pertinent part, that no person shall have the right to engage in the business of residential or general contracting without a current valid contractor license. OCGA § 43-41-17

(b) provides:
As a matter of public policy, any contract entered into on or after July 1, 2008, for the performance of work for which a residential contractor or general contractor license is required by this chapter and not otherwise exempted under this chapter and which is between an owner and a contractor who does not have a valid and current license required for such work in accordance with this chapter shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor…. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if a contract is rendered unenforceable under this subsection, no lien or bond claim shall exist in favor of the unlicensed contractor for any labor, services, or materials provided under the contract or any amendment thereto.
It is undisputed that Baja Properties and the Goldens did not have Georgia contractor’s licenses when the construction contract was executed and when the work was performed pursuant to the contract. The construction contract clearly identifies Baja Properties as the “Contractor” and Ugo Mattera as the “Owner” of the land on which the construction was to be completed. Thus, under OCGA § 42-41-17 (b), the construction contract is not enforceable by Baja Properties in law or in equity unless an exemption applies.
Baja Properties argues that it is exempted from the rule set out in OCGA § 43-41-17

by a provision in OCGA § 43-41-17 (h). Subsection (h) states, in part:
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude any person from constructing a building or structure on real property owned by such person which is intended upon completion for use or occupancy solely by that person and his or her family, firm, or corporation and its employees, and not for use by the general public and not offered for sale or lease. In so doing, such person may act as his or her own contractor personally providing direct supervision and management of all work not performed by licensed contractors.
Baja Properties posits that because subsection (h) permits a property owner to act as his own contractor and to use unlicensed contractors, the construction contract at the center of this dispute is “otherwise exempted” from the unenforceability provision of subsection (b).
However, “we must afford the statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning.” Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 172-173 (1)

(a) (751 SE2d 337) (2013) (citation omitted). Subsection (h) does not provide that an unlicensed contractor is exempt from the rule that prohibits an unlicensed contractor from enforcing an agreement for the performance of work for which a license is required. We point out that OCGA § 43-41-1 et seq. “shall be liberally construed so as to accomplish the intent” of the legislature, which is “to safeguard homeowners … against faulty, inadequate, inefficient, and unsafe residential and general contractors.” We will not interpret subsection (h) as allowing an unlicensed contractor to enforce a construction contract, when that subsection does not clearly provide such. Indeed, the general rule is that “[w]here a statute provides that persons proposing to engage in a certain business shall procure a license before being authorized to do so, … contracts made in violation of such statute are void and unenforceable.” Brantley Land & Timber, LLC v. W & D Investments, Inc., 316 Ga. App. 277, 278 (729 SE2d 458) (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted). Thus, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the Matteras on Baja Properties’s claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit and lien.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
CRITICAL THINKING:
Baja Properties is trying to make an argument that the exemption is ambiguous enough that the contract at the center of the dispute is covered by the exemption.
How do they make that argument?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
What stakeholders are being especially advantaged by the exemption?