Who "owns" a permit?

[Joe.B]

I assume this varies by state, maybe even by jurisdiction, I'm curious to hear how you handle this.

If a contractor pulls a permit, can they "cancel" the permit because of a dispute with the owner?

If a contractor quits a job, can the owner assign a new contractor to the same permit?

 

[mtlogcabin]

If a contractor pulls a permit, can they "cancel" the permit because of a dispute with the owner?

Yes. We require a written letter from the contractor withdrawing his permit and detailing what he work he has done along with an inspection by our office verifying what has been completed.

If a contractor quits a job, can the owner assign a new contractor to the same permit?

Yes. Same process as above.

We will issue a new permit to the new contractor with no additional fees collected and a detailed work description of what the new contractor is doing.

 

[Yikes]

Proof of Worker's Compensation is an essential aspect of permits in California, so yes, they can withdraw their participation and at a minimum a new permit must be issued to a different licensed contractor.
If the contractor pulled and paid for the original permit, then to whatever extent your city allows refunds, the contractor could theoretically pursue a refund.

 

[TheCommish]

We are similar to mtlogcabin, we charge an amendment fee $75.00

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that when a contractor takes out a building permit he does so as an agent of the owner. Assuming that's correct, then the permit "belongs" to the owner of the property, not to the contractor.

IBC 2021:

105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent
who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish
or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to
erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace
any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation
of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such
work to be performed, shall first make application to the building
official and obtain the required permit.

105.3 Application for permit. To obtain a permit, the
applicant shall first file an application therefor in writing on a
form furnished by the department of building safety for that
purpose. Such application shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the
permit for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be
done by legal description, street address or similar
description that will readily identify and definitely
locate the proposed building or work.
3. Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed
work is intended.
4. Be accompanied by construction documents and other
information as required in Section 107.
5. State the valuation of the proposed work.
6. Be signed by the applicant, or the applicant’s authorized
agent.
7. Give such other data and information as required by the
building official.

ICC Commentary for 105.3:

This section requires that a written application for a
permit be filed on forms provided by the building
department and details the information required on
those forms. Permit forms will typically have sufficient
space to write a very brief description of the work to be
accomplished, which is sufficient for only small jobs.
For larger projects, the description will be augmented
by construction documents as indicated in Item 4. As
required by Section 105.1, the applicant must be the
owner of the property or an authorized agent of the
owner, such as an engineer, architect, contractor,
tenant or other. The applicant must sign the application,
and permit forms typically include a statement
that if the applicant is not the owner, he or she has permission
from the owner to make the application.

IMHO, the permit "belongs" to the owner. If the owner chooses to replace the contractor, the owner should amend the permit to name the replacement contractor as the party responsible for performing the work.

The contractor cannot cancel a permit due to a conflict with the owner. The contractor CAN notify the building official that he/they are no longer the contractor, which puts the building official on notice to ask the owner who will be taking over as contractor, but I don't think the contractor can cancel the permit. He doesn't "own" it. If the contractor took out the permit, he/they did so as the agent of the owner.

 

[tmurray]

This might be semantics, but normally the issuing agency "owns" the permit. The owner and contractor are simply benefiting from a permit being issued. Any party can request that a permit be cancelled. It would be up to the issuing agency to determine if the reasons for the permit to be cancelled are sufficient to cancel it or not.

Dispute between owner and contractor are simply one element. What about co-owners who are having a dispute (divorce), and one wants the permit revoked, but the other doesn't. Having a good policy on when a permit can be cancelled is good practice. Also consider having differences between a permit being cancelled, revoked, and voided, based on your local laws.

 

[mark handler]

A building permit belongs to the property owner.
The contractor acts as an agent of the owner.
Who pays for the permit is a civil issue between the property owner and their agent.
We do charge to Change the parties listed on the permits.

 

[Yikes]

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that when a contractor takes out a building permit he does so as an agent of the owner. Assuming that's correct, then the permit "belongs" to the owner of the property, not to the contractor.

Good reference, YC, thanks for posting.
Would it be even more accurate to say that the permit “belongs” to the property, regardless of who is the property owner?
If the property was sold in mid-construction, would that invalidate the permit?

 

[Joe.B]

Good reference, YC, thanks for posting.
Would it be even more accurate to say that the permit “belongs” to the property, regardless of who is the property owner?
If the property was sold in mid-construction, would that invalidate the permit?

As I was reading the above comments, I was thinking the same thing. I'm trying to picture myself on both sides of the scenario. If I was the contractor and I got stiffed, I'd want to make sure the owner couldn't benefit from the permit I paid for. If I was the owner and I paid the contractor, but they didn't finish the work, I wouldn't want to have to pay again.

 

[mark handler]

As I was reading the above comments, I was thinking the same thing. I'm trying to picture myself on both sides of the scenario. If I was the contractor and I got stiffed, I'd want to make sure the owner couldn't benefit from the permit I paid for. If I was the owner and I paid the contractor, but they didn't finish the work, I wouldn't want to have to pay again.

Inequality, is a civil issue, not a building department issue.

 

[Joe.B]

Inequality, is a civil issue, not a building department issue.

Agreed, so we need to be careful not to take action that inserts ourselves into it. If we take action that affects the issue either way could be inadvertently creating inequality.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The contractor will usually bill the owner for the permit with the first payment, so the owner wouldn't benefit from something they didn't pay for.

 

[ICE]

whatever extent your city allows refunds

LA County will refund 80% if no inspections have been made. If an inspector has been there, no refund is available. A replacement permit could be discounted to allow for the lesser scope of work required to finish the project.

More than once, I have arrived for the first inspection only to discover that there is no way to allow what is proposed. I advised the owner to request a refund of 80% and denied ever having been there. Yes I know that my denial was dishonest however, the project should have not gotten a permit to begin with... so there is that.

 

[Yikes]

Who paid for the permit should be absolutely irrelevant to ownership of the permit, other than maybe issuance of refunds if it was paid by credit card, in which case there may be a policy to refund the money back to the same credit card account.

If I'm an owner standing in line at the building department cashier to pay my permit fee, and I can convince the sucker behind me to spot me $10k for my permit fee with the promise to pay him back "real soon", there is no change in the city's view of ownership of the permit. Same is true if the architect or contractor fronts the money.

 

[Joe.B]

The contractor will usually bill the owner for the permit with the first payment, so the owner wouldn't benefit from something they didn't pay for.

Unless they never paid the contractor. But how would I know, and should I even know or care?