Sandvik
Sandvik v. Bozung CA1/4
Opinion
Opinion
Rivera, J.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sandvik met Bozung in 2004 or 2005 through Andrew Stroud, a licensed contractor with whom he was working at the time. Sandvik and Stroud worked on several construction jobs for Bozung. Sandvik had previously been a licensed contractor,
1 but began working for Stroud in 2002. Sandvik no longer wanted to be responsible for running a contractor business. In June 2007, Sandvik began working with Bozung. Bozung was in the business of acquiring and remodeling homes for profit. In March or early April 2007, Bozung met with Sandvik and Stroud about working together on the property located at 1335 Jackson Street (the Jackson Street property).1 Bozung was interested in forming a partnership with Stroud and Sandvik to renovate the Jackson Street property. Sandvik told Bozung that they needed Stroud because he was the licensed contractor. Stroud opted not to work for Bozung because he feared losing control over his business. He also got the feeling that Bozung wanted to work solely with Sandvik, and that she wanted to proceed as an owner/builder instead of hiring a licensed contractor. Sandvik met again with Bozung concerning the Jackson Street property,…