The Occupational Code; Licensing requirements; A residential maintenance & alterations contractor (RMAC); MCL 339.2401(b); Effect of being an unlicensed RMAC; MCL 339.2412(1) & (3); The crafts & trades a license authorizes an RMAC to perform; MCL 339.2404(3); “Includes”; Whether installing a wrought iron railing onto a wood staircase constituted “carpentry”

The court held that plaintiff did not have to be licensed as an RMAC and thus, its failure to obtain a license did not bar it from suing defendant “because installing a wrought-iron railing does not fall within any of the” crafts or trades listed in MCL 339.2404(3), including carpentry. Thus, it reversed summary disposition for defendant and remanded. The parties contracted for “plaintiff to design, create, and install a wrought-iron railing for the staircase in defendant’s home.” Plaintiff sued after defendant refused to pay $16,000 it asserted remained due on the contract. The trial court found that plaintiff was required to be licensed as an RMAC and because it was not, it could not maintain this action. “Reading MCL 339.2401(b) in isolation, plaintiff fit within the persons qualifying as an RMAC. The definition of an RMAC is broad, covering in relevant part ‘a person who, for a fixed sum, price, [or] fee . . . undertakes with another for the . . . addition to . . . [or] improvement of . . . a residential structure.’ . . . Plaintiff, for the fixed price of $26,000, undertook to add to defendant’s home by installing a wrought-iron railing on defendant’s staircase. Accordingly, applying only the plain language of MCL 339.2401(b), plaintiff would qualify as an RMAC.” But the court concluded that the statute “must be read in conjunction with the crafts and trades that are exclusively eligible for licensure under MCL 339.2404(3), which . . . does not include plaintiff’s trade.” It found that the Legislature used the word “includes” in the statute “in a limiting sense. First, there is no expansive language tied to the word ‘includes,’ such as ‘for example,’ ‘but not limited to,’ or ‘such as.’” In addition, the rest of the provision “clarifies that the list is intended to be exhaustive, as the statute requires that a license specify the particular craft or trade for which the licensee is qualified.” The court also noted the fact that the Legislature “has amended this section to both add and subtract specific crafts and trades” supported a finding “that the listing is exhaustive, and not simply a list of examples.” Further, the court rejected defendant’s contention that “installing a wrought iron railing onto a wood staircase” made the work carpentry. Plaintiff “simply affixed a wrought iron fixture onto the staircase. No building or repairing of the wooden structure occurred by plaintiff’s installation.”