Case Title: Ex Parte Bradford

Citation: 795 So. 2d 652

Docket Number: 1982169

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
795 So. 2d 652 (2000)
Ex parte Donna S. BRADFORD.
(In re State of Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board and its Recovery Fund v. Donna S. Bradford).
1982169.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 15, 2000.
Richard S. Shinbaum of Shinbaum, Abell, McLeod & Vann, Montgomery; and Fred D. Gray, Sr., of Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray & Nathanson, Tuskegee, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; Kathy Perry Brasfield, asst. atty. gen.; and Kathy S. LeCroix, deputy atty. gen., for respondent Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board.
*653 Charles Cleveland of Cleveland & Cleveland, P.C., Birmingham, for amici curiae Gary W. Houser and Tina H. Houser.
COOK, Justice.
This Court's opinion of July 21, 2000, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
The circuit court ordered that the State of Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board and its Recovery Fund were obligated to pay Donna Bradford $50,000, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-15. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment. State Home Builders Licensure Bd. v. Bradford, 795 So. 2d 648 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). We granted Bradford's petition for certiorari review.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that "the notice to be given the board at the commencement of the action [i.e., an action against a licensed home builder] is an essential initial requirement one must meet in order to secure a recovery from the fund." We disagree. Section 34-14A-15 explicitly provides for dual notice, that is, one who sues a licensed home builder must notify the Licensure Board at the time the action is commenced and the licensed home builder must notify the Licensure Board within 10 days after receiving notice of a complaint. The dual-notice provision allows the Licensure Board to receive notice early in the litigation, so that it may assert its position, should it desire to do so. Although the statute provides that the complainant is to notify the Licensure Board when it files the complaint, in the absence of evidence that the Licensure Board was prejudiced the homeowner is not precluded from recovering. We, therefore, reverse and remand.
The circuit court's judgment is as follows:
We find no fault in the circuit court's reasoning. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand for that court to reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.[2]
APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF JULY 21, 2000, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
*656 HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, and BROWN, JJ., dissent.
HOUSTON, Justice (dissenting). I dissent.
"When a complaint is filed which may result in liability for the recovery fund, the complainant shall notify the board in writing, by certified mail, when the action is commenced." Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-15 (fourth paragraph). (Emphasis added.)
"[S]hall" means shall. I adopt the Court of Civil Appeals' well-reasoned opinion as my dissent. The Legislature created the Recovery Fund, Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-15. Without such legislation, the plaintiff would have no right to recover any sum from the State of Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board and its Recovery Fund. The Legislature also specified what a potential claimant must do, as a condition precedent, to recover from the Recovery Fund. The plaintiff did not do what she was required to do to recover. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly decided this case. The majority opinion is rewriting legislation because some Justices do not interpret "shall" to mean "shall." See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). Let the Legislature be the Legislature.
BROWN, J., concurs.
SEE, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent for the reasons stated by Justice Houston in his dissent.
[1]  Section 34-14A-15, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in part:

"Each licensee shall notify the board within 10 days after notice to him or her of the institution of any criminal prosecution against him or her, or of a civil complaint against him or her, if the subject matter of the civil complaint involves a residential home building transaction or involves the goodwill of an existing home building business or licensee. The notification shall be in writing, by certified mail, and must include a copy of the complaint....
"Each licensee shall notify the board in writing by certified mail within 10 days after he or she receives the notice ... that a civil action in which he or she was a defendant and which involved a home building transaction or the goodwill of a home building business has resulted in a judgment or been dismissed."
[2]  In opposition to the application for rehearing, amici curiae Gary W. Houser and Tina H. Houser state:

"The minority opinion criticize[s] the majority opinion as rewriting legislation and exclaim[s]: `Let the Legislature be the Legislature.'... The statute does not explicitly provide any penalty for the failure of the homeowner to give the prejudgment notice. It does not explicitly or implicitly provide that failure to give such notice would result in a forfeiture of the homeowner's rights. The minority's opinion would rewrite the statute to create a court-made forfeiture that the legislature did not see fit to require."
Brief of Amici Curiae in Opposition to Application for Rehearing, at 3.