Aa Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington C/W 65804

 On appeal, appellant argues that the district court's judgment
should be reversed because NRS 624.700 only applies to cases where the
bidding party entirely lacks a Nevada contractor's license. We disagree.
This court gives words in a statute their plain meaning unless
doing so would be contrary to the spirit of the statute. Berkson v. LePome,
126 Nev. 492, 497, 245 P.3d 560, 563 (2010). In relevant part, NRS
624.700 provides:
1. It is unlawful for any person or combination of
persons to:
(a) Engage in the business or act in the
capacity of a contractor within this State; or
(b) Submit a bid on a job situated within this
State,
without having an active license therefor as
provided in this chapter, unless that person or
combination of persons is exempted from licensure
pursuant to NRS 624.031.
••'
4. If a person submits a bid or enters into a
contract in violation of subsection 1, the bid or
contract shall be deemed void ab initio.
NRS 624.700(1), (4). Thus, the statute renders a contract void if the
bidding party submitted that bid "without having an active license
therefor." NRS 624.700(1). Nevada's Administrative Code provides
further clarification. Pursuant to NRS 624.100, the Nevada State
Contractors Board may "make such reasonable bylaws, rules of procedure
and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of [NRS
Chapter 624]." NRS 624.100(1). NAC 624.640, which the Board issued
under the authority of NRS 624.100, states plainly: "If a licensee bids or
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e
contracts outside the scope of his or her license or exceeds the monetary
limit placed on the license, the bid or contract is void." NAC 624.640(1).
Properly interpreted, NRS 624.700, by its plain meaning and
as informed by NAC 624.640, renders a contract void ab initio where a
contractor acts in excess of its license. As correctly noted by the district
court, the statute requires that the bidding contractor be properly licensed
for the bid job. Here, appellant bid on a job that exceeded the limit on its
license, which makes the contract' void ab initio. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Parraguirre
Cherry
'We note that according to appellant, the 'bathes stipulated to the
existence of a valid contract. However, in many of the instances to which
appellant cites, it was the attorney for appellant who characterized the
document as a "contract." In other instances where respondents used the
term "contract," the record demonstrates that the term primarily was used
in reference to the physical document detailing the specifications of the job
in question, rather than as an admission precluding their argument that
the contract was void. Regardless, appellant held a C-3 (Carpentry)
license that limited the value of any contract into which it entered to
$100,000.
We have considered appellant's other arguments, including those
2
concerning the attorney fees award, and conclude that they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 194M ze
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge
Pintar Albiston LLP
Parker, Nelson & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ce.