Case Title: Haskew v. Green

Citation: 571 So. 2d 1029

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1990-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
571 So. 2d 1029 (1990)
Daryl HASKEW, individually and d/b/a Haskew Construction Company
v.
Robert S. GREEN and Rita R. Green.
89-924.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 19, 1990.
*1030 John W. Parker and Michael S. McNair of Parker & McNair, Mobile, for appellant.
Myland R. Engel and Edgar P. Walsh of Engel, Walsh & Zoghby, Mobile, for appellees.
JONES, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, Robert and Rita Green, husband and wife, based on the trial court's finding that the plaintiff, Daryl Haskew, suing individually and d/b/a Haskew Construction Company, was an improperly licensed contractor and thus was not entitled to enforce the construction contract he had with the Greens.
On October 19, 1987, Haskew contracted with the Greens to build a log home for a price of $60,492. Sometime before construction of the home was completed, the Greens informed Haskew that his services were no longer needed.
Haskew sued the Greens to perfect a materialman's lien, pursuant to Code 1975, § 35-11-222, and for breach of contract to recover the cost of his work, labor, and materials furnished. The Greens filed an answer alleging, among other things, that the contract is "unenforceable because the [plaintiff is] improperly licensed pursuant to Ala.Code, § 40-12-84" and further alleging that the contract is "null, void, and illegal because it is in violation of public policy." The Greens also filed a counterclaim alleging breach of the agreement to construct the home in accordance with certain plans and specifications and breach of an implied warranty to construct the home in a workmanlike manner. The trial court held that the contract in dispute was unenforceable because of Haskew's failure to comply with Code 1975, § 40-12-84 and, based solely upon this holding, entered summary judgment in favor of the Greens.[1] That summary judgment was made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P.
The dispositive issue is whether Code 1975, § 40-12-84, is a regulatory statute designed to protect the public from incompetent contractors or is merely a statute designed to raise revenue.
Bronner v. Gatewood, 512 So. 2d 102, 105-06 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), affirmed, 512 So. 2d 107 (Ala.1987).
In this case, the statute in question, Ala. Code 1975, § 40-12-84, provides as follows:
In Sunflower Lumber Co. v. Turner Supply Co., 158 Ala. 191, 194-95, 48 So. 510-11 (1909), then-Justice Anderson, quoting approvingly from Clark on Contracts, 385, stated the law applicable to this case:
In a subsequent case, Bowdoin v. Alabama Chemical Co., 201 Ala. 582, 583, 79 So. 4, 5 (1918), this Court reiterated what it had said in Sunflower Lumber Co.:
We pause to note that the present case is readily distinguishable from our recent holdings in Sanwa Business Credit Corp. v. G.B. "Boots" Smith Corp., 548 So. 2d 1336 (Ala.1989), and Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock, 525 So. 2d 1366 (Ala.1988), wherein this Court held that a foreign corporation cannot sue to enforce a *1032 contract that is to be performed in Alabama if that corporation has failed to qualify to do business in Alabama on or before the date the contract is made. The decisions in Sanwa Credit Corp. and Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. were based on the provisions of Ala. Const., Art. XII, § 232, and § 10-2A-247(a), Code 1975. Those pertinent provisions are as follows:
Ala. Const., Art. XII, § 232.
§ 10-2A-247(a), Code 1975.
A review of the above-quoted portions of § 10-2A-247 and § 232 clearly shows that they were aimed at protecting the public interests in several respects. First, the provisions ensure that foreign corporations will pay their share of taxes and fees. Code 1975, § 10-2A-247(b). Second, they facilitate service of process of foreign corporations, thereby making foreign corporations accountable in Alabama courts. Third, they require the filing of pertinent information concerning corporate affairs and thereby equalize, in terms of regulation, the positions of foreign and domestic corporations. SanJay, Inc. v. Duncan Constr. Co., 445 So. 2d 876 (Ala.1983) (Torbert, C.J., dissenting).
A cursory examination of § 40-12-84, located in Title 40 (entitled "Revenue and Taxation"), leads one to the inescapable conclusion that that section does nothing more than provide a convenient method of collecting revenue.[2] We are therefore of the opinion that the summary judgment was premature. For the reasons stated, the judgment is due to be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., concurs specially.
ADAMS, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur specially. It has not been alleged that the contractor failed to comply with Ala.Code 1975, § 34-8-1 et seq., the regulatory provisions requiring the licensing of general contractors. Therefore, that section and the cases in which we have voided contracts entered in violation thereof are not implicated in this case. See Hawkins v. League, 398 So. 2d 232 (Ala. 1981); Cooper v. Johnston, 283 Ala. 565, 219 So. 2d 392 (1969); and Tucker v. Walker, 293 Ala. 589, 308 So. 2d 245 (1975).
[1]  No ruling was made with respect to the Greens' counterclaim.
[2]  For an excellent discussion of Code 1975, § 34-8-1 et seq. (regulatory statute for general contractors), see J & M Industries, Inc. v. Huguley Oil Co., 546 So. 2d 367 (Ala.1989).