Background
Chris Hayes, appearing pro se, appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his construction contract dispute against Scott Joseph Eichorn. Hayes sought payment for construction work performed, but the trial court granted Eichorn’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Hayes challenged the summary judgment ruling on multiple grounds, contending the trial court failed to follow proper summary judgment standards and did not give adequate consideration to factual and evidentiary submissions. He also raised constitutional objections regarding due process and Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Hayes was statutorily barred from bringing the lawsuit under ORS 701.131(1). That statute prohibits a contractor from commencing a court claim for compensation unless the contractor held a valid license issued by the Construction Contractors Board at the time of bidding or contract entry and continuously while performing the work. The undisputed record established Hayes lacked such a valid license during the relevant work period.
Applying the proper summary judgment standard—viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and recognizing competing reasonable inferences—no objectively reasonable juror could find for Hayes given the statutory licensing requirement. The court rejected Hayes’ constitutional arguments as either underdeveloped or improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief, and found he had not preserved his Article I, section 10 remedy clause argument before the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon contractors must possess a valid Construction Contractors Board license at contract entry and maintain it continuously throughout performance to recover compensation in court.
- Lack of proper licensure is an absolute statutory bar to suit—not merely a licensing violation subject to administrative remedy.
- Constitutional arguments not properly developed or preserved for appeal will not be considered on review, even in cases involving pro se litigants.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores Oregon’s strict licensing requirements for construction contractors as a condition precedent to court relief. The statutory bar operates regardless of the quality or necessity of work performed—licensing compliance is non-negotiable.
The case also illustrates Oregon appellate courts’ application of appellate procedure rules even to pro se parties. Underdeveloped constitutional arguments and issues not preserved at trial will not receive consideration, and courts will not independently develop legal theories on a party’s behalf.