Quick AnswerThe code case is against you. Florida Building Code §105.1 puts the permit duty on the owner or anyone who causes work to be done, and a §162.09 lien attaches to the land. But under Fla. Stat. §489.128, a contract entered into by a contractor who lacked a required state license is unenforceable by that contractor, and no lien or bond claim exists in their favor — so a lien they recorded has no legal foundation. That turns on state licensure, not a local business tax receipt.
It is one of the most common calls we get, and one of the most frustrating. You hired someone. They said they would pull the permits. They did the work, took the money, and disappeared. Months or years later — often when a permit search runs during a sale or refinance — the city cites the property. And the person on the hook is you.
Let us deal with the bad news properly, because a lawyer who tells you the contractor's misconduct gets you off the hook is setting you up.
The code case runs against the owner. Full stop.
Florida Building Code §105.1 places the permit obligation on "any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure … or to cause any such work to be done." That last clause is the one that matters. Hiring someone to do it is causing it to be done.
Section 553.79(1)(a) makes it unlawful for any person to construct, alter, or repair a building "without first obtaining a permit." And under §162.09(3), a recorded order imposing a fine becomes "a lien against the land on which the violation exists" — and, notably, "upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator."
Chapter 162 even confirms this logic in the transfer context. Section 162.06(5) requires an owner selling during a pending proceeding to disclose in writing "that the new owner will be responsible for compliance." The duty follows ownership. It does not follow fault.
So "my contractor did it and vanished" is not a defense at the code hearing. It is mitigation — on the size of the fine and the time you get to comply — and it is a good one. But it does not make the case go away, and it does not stop fines from accruing while you chase the contractor.
Fine exposure under §162.09(2)(a) runs up to $250 per day for a first violation and $500 per day for a repeat, with up to $5,000 for an irreparable or irreversible violation. Jurisdictions over 50,000 people may adopt higher schedules — up to $1,000, $5,000, and $15,000 respectively.
The statute that is genuinely on your side
Now the part most homeowners do not know. Fla. Stat. §489.128 provides that contracts entered into by an unlicensed contractor "shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor." And subsection (2):
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if a contract is rendered unenforceable under this section, 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."
If an unlicensed contractor recorded a construction lien against your property, that lien has no legal foundation. That is immediate, concrete value.
Two clarifications, because both directions of this get misreported. First, the bar runs one way only. Several sources state that §489.128 makes the contract unenforceable "by either party." That is wrong. The Florida Supreme Court in Earth Trades, Inc. v. T & G Corp., 108 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2013), put it plainly: "only the unlicensed contractor has no right of contract enforcement." You keep your affirmative claims. Earth Trades also held that the contractor cannot defend by arguing you knew they were unlicensed.
Second, the section turns on state licensure. The statute says that "if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed." For trades requiring only local licensure, this argument does not reach.
The owner-builder permit problem
If you pulled an owner-builder permit and let someone else do the work, read this section twice. It is the worst fact pattern in this area of Florida law.
The exemption in §489.103(7) applies to "owners of property when acting as their own contractor and providing direct, onsite supervision themselves of all work." The disclosure statement you signed when you pulled that permit contains twelve numbered paragraphs. Paragraph 6 reads: "I may not hire an unlicensed person to act as my contractor or to supervise persons working on my building or residence."
So if an unlicensed contractor actually performed and supervised the work: you signed a sworn statement promising not to do that; the statutory predicate for the exemption — supervising it yourself — was never satisfied, so the exemption arguably never applied; you are the responsible party of record on the permit; and under paragraph 7 you accepted exposure for injuries to the unlicensed crew, who are typically uninsured.
None of that is fatal, but you need to know it before you walk into a hearing telling the magistrate a contractor misled you.
Why the Recovery Fund probably will not help
People hear about the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund and assume it is the backstop. For unlicensed work, it generally is not — and this is the single most important expectation to reset.
Section 489.141(1)(c) requires that "the violation was committed by a licensee." Section 489.141(2)(d) separately bars a claim based on a contract "in which the contractor did not hold a valid and current license at the time of the construction contract." DBPR's own materials describe the fund as covering losses caused by a licensed contractor.
If your contractor was unlicensed, that door is very likely closed. If they were licensed, the fund is worth pursuing: you first need a final judgment, arbitration award, or CILB restitution order, and then you must file within one year of the conclusion of that action. Caps were raised by the Legislature in 2024 — for contracts entered on or after July 1, 2024, $100,000 for a Division I claim and $30,000 for Division II. We would note that §489.143 contains some internal tension between its subsections on amounts, so treat any figure as something to confirm rather than count on.
What actually creates leverage
Three things move a vanished contractor, in rough order of effectiveness.
A criminal referral. Unlicensed contracting is a first-degree misdemeanor on a first offense under §489.127(2)(a), and a third-degree felony after a prior adjudication. Critically, §489.127(2)(c) makes it a third-degree felony when committed "during the existence of a state of emergency declared by executive order of the Governor." In post-hurricane Florida that provision reaches a great deal of work. A police report and a State Attorney referral is frequently the only thing that produces a return phone call.
A DBPR complaint. Under §489.13(3), DBPR may impose an administrative fine of up to $10,000 on an unlicensed person. The Unlicensed Activity hotline is 1-866-532-1440. Both DBPR and local building departments can issue cease and desist orders under §489.113(2).
A civil action. You retain breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and potentially FDUTPA claims. Be realistic: Florida has no equivalent to California's automatic disgorgement statute, so a refund of what you already paid is not automatic — you have to plead and prove it. And a judgment against someone who has disappeared is often uncollectible.
Meanwhile, the permit still has to be resolved
The code case ends when the work is permitted or removed. After-the-fact permitting usually means as-built drawings, certification of structural adequacy by a Florida engineer or architect, product approval documentation, and either exposing the concealed work or getting an engineer to certify it in lieu.
Expect a penalty. The Administrative Code for the Florida Building Code provides that work commenced before permit issuance is "subject to a penalty of 100 percent of the usual permit fee in addition to the required permit fees or as provided by local ordinance." Local adoptions vary, and multipliers in practice commonly run two to four times.
One argument worth knowing: §553.80(7) provides that permit fees and related fines "may only be used for carrying out the local government's responsibilities in enforcing the Florida Building Code," and that annual revenue from fees and related fines may not exceed the annual cost of those activities. Where a jurisdiction's after-the-fact multiplier looks punitive rather than cost-based, that provision is a legitimate line of challenge.
The sequence that works
Handle the code case and the contractor as two separate tracks, and do not let the second delay the first. Fines accrue while you are looking for someone who does not want to be found. Get the violation resolved or the deadline extended, kill any lien the unlicensed contractor recorded, and pursue them in the forum where their conduct actually matters.
If you have a notice or an order in hand, send it to us. We review it at no cost and tell you in writing what your options are and what it costs — before you owe anything. Call (305) 396-1495 or start a free violation review. Flat-fee defense. No hourly billing.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Statutes and local ordinances change. Every case turns on its own facts — talk to a lawyer about yours.