Case Title: CRM Services, LLC v. Georgia Holding, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2019-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: June 28, 2019
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019
____________________
1180091
____________________
CRM Services, LLC
v.
Georgia Holding, LLC
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-16-902073)
MENDHEIM, Justice.
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and
Stewart, JJ., concur.
Mitchell, J., dissents.
1180091
MITCHELL, Justice (dissenting).
While I acknowledge that the Alabama General Contractors
Practice Act, § 34-8-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the AGCPA"),
can have severe consequences for those who perform general
contracting work without a license, it is not clear that the
work at issue in this case was, in fact, general contracting
work.  Despite being presented with evidence raising an issue
of material fact, the trial court did not allow the parties to
litigate that issue. Instead, the trial court found
dispositive a single item of evidence that does not resolve
the issue at the heart of this dispute.  Because I believe the
trial court was wrong to enter a summary judgment, I
respectfully dissent.
Background
On October 26, 2015, the Birmingham Building Trade Towers
("the Towers"), which was owned by Georgia Holding, LLC,
suffered fire damage.  The following day, Georgia Holding
entered into an agreement with CRM Services, LLC ("CRM"),
under which CRM agreed to perform, according to CRM,
"mitigation and preservation services ... to prevent the
spread of mold and other microbials" ("the M&P agreement").
2
1180091
According to CRM, it also provided "asbestos abatement
services" for Georgia Holding under what it claims was a
separate agreement ("the purported asbestos agreement"). When
Georgia Holding failed to pay in full for CRM's services, CRM
filed a verified claim of lien ("the verified lien") upon the
Towers 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$1,817,655.45 
for 
the
"mitigation/construction/renovation/ 
restoration" 
of 
the
Towers and improvements, "including ... structural drying,
daily moisture monitoring, and asbestos abatement." 
Less than five months later, CRM sued Georgia Holding to
recover payment under the M&P agreement.1  CRM attached the
verified lien to its complaint.  CRM states in its complaint
that it is not seeking recovery for the work it performed
under the purported asbestos agreement.  Georgia Holding, on
the other hand, denies the existence of the purported asbestos
agreement and contends that all of CRM's work was general
contracting work performed under a single agreement.
Only 13 days after answering CRM's complaint, Georgia
Holding moved for a summary judgment.  It argued that the M&P
1CRM brought claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.  It also brought a claim seeking to enforce its
lien against Georgia Holding but has since abandoned that
claim.
3
1180091
agreement was void as a matter of law because it was a
contract for general contracting work as defined by the AGCPA
and CRM was not licensed as a general contractor in Alabama. 
Given the short period between the close of the pleadings and
Georgia Holding's filing of its motion for a summary judgment,
the parties' summary-judgment briefing was conducted without
the benefit of discovery.  Although written discovery requests
had been propounded, no responses were ever served; nor were
any depositions taken.  The evidence before the trial court
included an affidavit from CRM's chief executive officer
attesting 
that 
its 
asbestos-abatement work 
was 
performed under
a separate contract than the M&P agreement and that CRM did
not agree to perform any construction work when it entered
into the M&P agreement.  Nevertheless, the trial court found
dispositive the scope of work described by CRM in its verified
lien.  The trial court, without apparent context for the
verified lien or the statements made in that document,
concluded in a one-page order that "[t]his sworn statement by
[CRM] characterizing the scope of its work is clearly governed
by Ala. Code [1975,] § 34-8-1 et seq. ... and no attempts by
[CRM] to now re-characterize the scope of work can avail."  It
4
1180091
accordingly entered a summary judgment for Georgia Holding as
to CRM's claims. 
Discussion
According to the AGCPA, "one engages in the business of
general contracting in the State of Alabama" by undertaking,
in relevant part, "to construct or superintend or engage in
the 
construction, 
alteration, 
maintenance, 
repair,
rehabilitation, 
remediation, 
reclamation, 
or 
demolition 
of 
any
building ... where the cost of the undertaking is fifty
thousand dollars or more." § 34-8-1(a), Ala. Code 1975.  We
have long held that contracts for general contracting work
with an unlicensed general contractor are void as a matter of
public policy.  See, e.g., Architectural Graphics & Constr.
Servs., Inc. v. Pitman, 417 So. 2d 574, 576 (Ala. 1982);
Hawkins v. League, 398 So. 2d 232, 235 (Ala. 1981); Tucker v.
Walker, 308 So. 2d 245, 247 (Ala. 1975).  Thus, one who
performs general contracting work without a license may not
recover for that work.  Further, we will not enforce contracts
made in an effort to evade the AGCPA.  See, e.g., Cochran v.
Ozark Country Club, Inc., 339 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Ala. 1976).
5
1180091
To prevail on a nonlicensure defense, as Georgia Holding
attempts to do here, a defendant must prove: 1) that the
contractor was unlicensed; 2) that the contracted work was the
type of work covered by the AGCPA; and 3) that the cost of the
work was at least $50,000.  Tucker, 308 So. 2d at  247;
Central Alabama Home Health Servs. v. Eubank, 790 So. 2d 258,
260 & n.3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).2  Because CRM concedes that
it is not licensed to perform general contracting work in
Alabama and that the cost of the work at issue exceeds
$50,000, Georgia Holding would be entitled to a summary
judgment on its nonlicensure defense if it is determined as a
matter of law that the contracted work was the type of work
covered by the AGCPA. 
To resolve this issue, it is necessary to examine several
important questions that are in dispute.  First, it must be
determined whether there was one contract or two contracts. 
If all of CRM's work, including its general contracting work,
was performed under only one contract, the M&P agreement, that
2Summary 
judgment 
is 
appropriate only 
when, 
in 
viewing 
the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Rule
56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.  See, e.g., Ex parte City of Muscle
Shoals, 257 So. 3d 850, 854 (Ala. 2018).
6
1180091
contract would not be enforced and Georgia Holding would be
entitled to a summary judgment.  In the alternative,
regardless of whether the purported asbestos agreement exists,
Georgia Holding would be entitled to a summary judgment if it
were determined that the work performed under the M&P
agreement fell within the scope of the AGCPA.  Finally, in the
further alternative, Georgia Holding would be entitled to a
summary judgment if it were determined as a matter of law that
CRM entered into the M&P agreement in an effort to evade the 
AGCPA.
It does not appear that the trial court engaged in any of
this analysis.  Instead, based solely and strictly on a
statement in the verified lien -- which describes a wide range
of work activity that is not contextualized anywhere in the
document or by undisputed evidence elsewhere in the record --
the trial court entered a summary judgment for Georgia
Holding.  But the verified lien does not foreclose the
possibility that the work it describes was performed, as CRM
claims, under two separate contracts.  Nor does the verified
lien address whether the work performed under the M&P
agreement falls within the scope of the AGCPA.  Finally, the
7
1180091
verified lien sheds no light on whether CRM entered into the
M&P agreement in an effort to circumvent the AGCPA.   Because
the only item of evidence upon which the trial court relied
does not resolve any of the underlying factual questions that
are necessary to determine whether the work at issue falls
under the AGCPA, I believe the trial court erred in entering
a summary judgment for Georgia Holding.
Conclusion
Because the only evidence relied upon by the trial court
does not resolve the issue at the heart of this dispute, I
would reverse the summary judgment and remand the case.  I
therefore respectfully dissent.
8