Title: Limestone Creek Developers, LLC v. Stuart Trapp et al.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 08/17/2012 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1110838 
Limestone Creek Developers, LLC 
v. 
Stuart Trapp et a l . 
Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-900) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
Limestone Creek 
D e v e l o p e r s , LLC ("LCD"), sued 
S t u a r t 
Trapp and two companies i n which Trapp had a 
c o n t r o l l i n g 
i n t e r e s t — 
K y v e s t , L t d . , 
and R e d e s i g n , I n c . (these two 
companies a r e 
h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e 
1110838 
Trapp companies," w h i l e a l l the d e f e n d a n t s 
are 
r e f e r r e d 
t o 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
as 
"the Trapp d e f e n d a n t s " ) 
— 
i n the Madison 
C i r c u i t C o u r t a f t e r Trapp was u n a b l e or u n w i l l i n g t o c l o s e on 
a c o n t r a c t he had p e r s o n a l l y e n t e r e d i n t o a g r e e i n g t o p u r c h a s e 
a l l 
the 
l o t s i n a new 
s u b d i v i s i o n owned by LCD. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
a summary judgment 
i n 
f a v o r 
of 
the 
Trapp 
d e f e n d a n t s , 
and LCD a p p e a l s . 
We 
a f f i r m . 
I . 
Sometime i n l a t e 2007, Mark Yarbrough and T e r r y McDonald 
were c o n t a c t e d by Joe W i l l i a m H u l s e y t o gauge t h e i r 
i n t e r e s t 
i n p u r c h a s i n g some p r o p e r t y t h a t H u l s e y ' s mother, M a r g a r e t B. 
H u l s e y , owned i n Toney. 
Joe H u l s e y was aware t h a t Yarbrough 
and McDonald had p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e 
r e l a t e d t o 
d e v e l o p i n g 
s u b d i v i s i o n s , and he b e l i e v e d h i s mother's p r o p e r t y might be 
s u i t e d f o r such a p r o j e c t . 
Yarbrough and McDonald had never 
b e f o r e 
p e r s o n a l l y 
p u r c h a s e d 
p r o p e r t y 
and 
overseen 
i t s 
subsequent development i n t o a s u b d i v i s i o n ; however, o v e r 
a 
p e r i o d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 y e a r s t h e y had done e x t e n s i v e 
s i t e 
work f o r Trapp i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s u b d i v i s i o n s h i s companies 
had d e v e l o p e d , 
and t h e y a c c o r d i n g l y c o n t a c t e d him t o d i s c u s s 
t h i s 
o p p o r t u n i t y . 
Trapp was 
i n the 
m i d s t 
of 
d e v e l o p i n g 
2 
1110838 
a n o t h e r s u b d i v i s i o n , The L a n d i n g s , l e s s than f i v e m i l e s from 
H u l s e y ' s p r o p e r t y , and, a f t e r v i s i t i n g Mrs. H u l s e y ' s p r o p e r t y , 
he 
e x p r e s s e d an 
i n t e r e s t 
i n w o r k i n g 
w i t h 
Yarbrough 
and 
McDonald 
t o 
c o n s t r u c t 
houses 
on t h e p r o p e r t y i f t h e y 
s u b s e q u e n t l y p u r c h a s e d 
i t . 
Yarbrough, McDonald, and Trapp 
t h e r e a f t e r had d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h a bank 
o f f i c i a l who 
o r a l l y 
a g r e e d t o l e n d money t o f u n d b o t h Yarbrough and McDonald's 
i n i t i a l p u r c h a s e o f H u l s e y ' s p r o p e r t y and Trapp's 
subsequent 
p u r c h a s e o f l o t s from them once t h e i n i t i a l development o f 
t h e 
p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n was complete. 
Mrs. 
H u l s e y t h e r e a f t e r 
v i s i t e d The L a n d i n g s t o v e r i f y 
t h a t she was c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l t y p e s o f houses 
Trapp e x p e c t e d t o b u i l d on t h e p r o p e r t y , and she, Yarbrough 
and 
McDonald, 
and Trapp 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
a g r e e d 
t o 
c e r t a i n 
r e s t r i c t i o n s and covenants t h a t would govern t h e 
p r o p e r t y . A t 
some p o i n t , Yarbrough and McDonald c r e a t e d t h e e n t i t y known as 
LCD. 
On J a n u a r y 9, 2008, Yarbrough and McDonald 
f o r m a l l y 
s i g n e d a c o n t r a c t w i t h Mrs. H u l s e y on b e h a l f o f LCD a g r e e i n g 
to p u r c h a s e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28 a c r e s f o r $560,000. The c o n t r a c t 
was c o n t i n g e n t on an e n g i n e e r e x a m i n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y and 
c o n d u c t i n g 
s o i l 
t e s t s 
t o c o n f i r m t h a t 
t h e p r o p e r t y was 
3 
1110838 
s u i t a b l e 
f o r 
r e s i d e n t i a l 
development, 
and 
Yarbrough 
and 
McDonald t h e r e a f t e r h i r e d Nash E n g i n e e r i n g , LLC, t o complete 
t h o s e t e s t s . 
Nash E n g i n e e r i n g a l s o d r a f t e d an i n i t i a l 
l a y o u t 
f o r the s u b d i v i s i o n , d i v i d i n g the p r o p e r t y i n t o 51 l o t s based 
on Trapp's r e q u e s t t h a t each l o t be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 
f e e t 
wide. 
LCD t h e r e a f t e r c l o s e d on the p r o p e r t y . LCD engaged i n 
f u r t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h Trapp r e g a r d i n g the p r o p e r t y , and 
Trapp e v e n t u a l l y a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e the 51 l o t s from LCD f o r 
$30,000 each. 
The $30,000 p r i c e was a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e from 
the 
i n i t i a l 
p r i c e 
d i s c u s s e d 
between 
the 
p a r t i e s 
o f 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
$29,000 
because 
Trapp 
a l s o 
wanted 
LCD 
t o 
c o n s t r u c t 
a 
d e c o r a t i v e 
s i g n 
f o r 
the 
e n t r a n c e 
t o 
the 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
comparable 
t o the 
s i g n 
o u t s i d e 
The 
L a n d i n g s . 
Trapp 
a l s o 
c r e a t e d 
the name f o r the 
new 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
— 
H e r i t a g e L a n d i n g s . 
On March 
7, 2008, Trapp s i g n e d a c o n t r a c t a g r e e i n g t o 
p u r c h a s e the 51 l o t s i n H e r i t a g e L a n d i n g s from LCD f o r $30,000 
each. 
P u r s u a n t t o the terms of the c o n t r a c t , Trapp a g r e e d t o 
p u r c h a s e 10 l o t s once i n i t i a l development of the s u b d i v i s i o n 
was c o m p l e t e d and then t o p u r c h a s e an a d d i t i o n a l 7 l o t s w i t h i n 
the 
n e x t 6 months. 
For a l l l o t s o t h e r than t h e 
f i r s t 
10, 
4 
1110838 
Trapp was o b l i g a t e d t o pay the c o r r e s p o n d i n g 
i n t e r e s t on LCD's 
bank l o a n a l o n g w i t h the $30,000 l o t p r i c e . 
F o l l o w i n g the e x e c u t i o n 
o f the c o n t r a c t , LCD commenced 
s i t e work on the p r o p e r t y , 
such as c l e a r i n g the l a n d 
and 
l a y i n g out s t r e e t s . 
When i t was d i s c o v e r e d 
t h a t 12 o f t h e 
l o t s 
would need e n g i n e e r e d s e p t i c systems, Trapp p a i d 
an 
e n g i n e e r t o complete the n e c e s s a r y 
work. On or about June 15, 
2009, 
the 
i n i t i a l 
development 
of 
H e r i t a g e 
L a n d i n g s 
was 
completed, and LCD t h e r e a f t e r sought t o have Trapp 
f i n a l i z e 
h i s p u r c h a s e o f l o t s p u r s u a n t t o the terms of the c o n t r a c t ; 
however, Trapp would not do so, a s s e r t i n g t h a t he no 
l o n g e r 
had 
the 
a b i l i t y 
t o 
f i n a l i z e 
the 
p u r c h a s e 
because 
of 
p r e v a i l i n g economic c o n d i t i o n s t h a t had n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t e d 
h i s h o m e - b u i l d i n g b u s i n e s s . 
On June 15, 2010, LCD sued Trapp, a s s e r t i n g f r a u d and 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m s and s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c performance of 
the c o n t r a c t as w e l l as damages, i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s . 
LCD 
a l s o sought a judgment from the t r i a l 
c o u r t e s t o p p i n g 
Trapp 
from d e n y i n g the v a l i d i t y of the c o n t r a c t . 
Trapp 
f i l e d an 
answer on August 27, 2010, g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s 
of LCD's c o m p l a i n t . 
On August 16, 2011, LCD f i l e d an amended 
5 
1110838 
c o m p l a i n t , 
a d d i n g 
the 
Trapp 
companies 
as 
d e f e n d a n t s 
and 
a s s e r t i n g an a l t e r ego t h e o r y and s e e k i n g " t o p i e r c e the 
v e i l " 
of the Trapp companies. 
LCD 
s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment. 
The Trapp d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a response 
and 
t h e r e a f t e r 
f i l e d 
t h e i r own 
summary-judgment m o t i o n , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t Trapp's c o n t r a c t w i t h LCD 
was 
v o i d because i t p u r p o r t e d 
t o s e l l l o t s i n a new 
s u b d i v i s i o n b e f o r e the county i s s u e d the 
p e r m i t 
t o 
d e v e l o p 
the 
s u b d i v i s i o n , 
i n 
v i o l a t i o n 
of 
§ 
1 1 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, 
p a r t of the county s u b d i v i s i o n -
c o n t r o l s t a t u t e s , § 11-24-1 e t seq., 
A l a . Code 1975, 
and 
i n 
v i o l a t i o n 
of 
v a r i o u s 
p r o v i s i o n s 
i n 
the 
Madison 
County 
S u b d i v i s i o n R e g u l a t i o n s 
("MCSR"). 
On December 27, 
2011, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d 
an 
o r d e r 
h o l d i n g 
t h a t the 
c o n t r a c t between LCD 
and Trapp v i o l a t e d 
§ 
11-24-2(a) and 
was 
t h e r e f o r e 
v o i d . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
a summary judgment 
i n 
f a v o r 
of 
the 
Trapp 
d e f e n d a n t s on LCD's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m , as w e l l as 
on 
LCD's o t h e r 
c l a i m s , w h i c h , 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
h e l d , were a l l 
dependent on the c o n t r a c t , w h i c h was 
v o i d . 
LCD's subsequent 
m o t i o n t o 
a l t e r , amend, or v a c a t e the judgment was 
d e n i e d , 
6 
1110838 
and, on March 29, 
2012, 
LCD f i l e d i t s 
n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s 
C o u r t . 
I I . 
LCD 
argues 
t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a 
summary judgment i n 
f a v o r o f 
t h e 
Trapp d e f e n d a n t s . We r e v i e w 
t h i s argument p u r s u a n t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d : 
" T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f 
a summary judgment i s 
de 
novo. 
W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. Auto. I n s . Co., 
886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2003). 
We a p p l y t h e same 
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a p p l i e d . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e whether t h e movant 
has made a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t no genuine 
i s s u e 
of 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s 
e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f law. 
R u l e 
5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f  
Alabama v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 
2004). 
I n making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must 
r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n 
t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e 
t o 
the nonmovant. 
W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 
758 
( A l a . 
1986). 
Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a 
f a c i e 
showing 
t h a t t h e r e i s 
no genuine 
i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l 
f a c t , t h e burden 
then 
s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o 
produce 
' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e 
e x i s t e n c e 
of 
a genuine 
i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l 
f a c t . 
Bass v.  
S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n County, 538 So. 2d 
794, 
797-98 ( A l a . 1989); A l a . Code 1975, 
§ 12-21-12." 
Dow v. Alabama D e m o c r a t i c 
P a r t y , 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 
( A l a . 
2004). 
I I I . 
The gravamen o f LCD's argument on a p p e a l i s t h a t 
i t s 
c o n t r a c t w i t h Trapp d i d n o t v i o l a t e § 11-24-2(a) o r t h e 
MCSR 
7 
1110838 
and t h a t the 
t r i a l c o u r t a c c o r d i n g l y e r r e d by d e c l a r i n g t h a t 
c o n t r a c t v o i d and e n t e r i n g a summary judgment i n f a v o r of 
the 
Trapp d e f e n d a n t s . 
S e c t i o n 
11-24-2(a) 
s t a t e s , 
i n 
r e l e v a n t 
p a r t : 
" I t s h a l l be the d u t y of the owner and d e v e l o p e r of 
each s u b d i v i s i o n t o have a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n completed 
i n 
c o n f o r m i t y 
w i t h 
t h i s 
c h a p t e r 
and, 
p r i o r 
t o 
b e g i n n i n g 
any c o n s t r u c t i o n or development, t o submit 
the 
p r o p o s e d 
p l a t 
t o 
the 
c o u n t y 
commission 
f o r 
a p p r o v a l 
and o b t a i n a p e r m i t t o d e v e l o p as 
r e q u i r e d 
i n 
t h i s 
s e c t i o n . 
The 
p e r m i t t o d e v e l o p 
s h a l l 
be 
o b t a i n e d b e f o r e 
the a c t u a l s a l e , o f f e r i n g f o r s a l e , 
t r a n s f e r , or l e a s e of any 
l o t s from the 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
or a d d i t i o n t o the p u b l i c , i t must i n c l u d e a p l a n t o 
d e l i v e r u t i l i t i e s i n c l u d i n g w a t e r , and s h a l l o n l y be 
i s s u e d upon a p p r o v a l 
of 
the p r o p o s e d p l a t by 
the 
c o u n t y commission." 
(Emphasis added.) 
LCD argues t h a t i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Trapp d i d 
not 
v i o l a t e § 11-24-2(a) because, LCD 
a r g u e s , Trapp i s 
not 
"the p u b l i c " as t h a t term i s used i n the s t a t u t e . 
The 
term 
"the p u b l i c " i s not d e f i n e d i n § 1 1 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , and 
LCD 
argues 
t h a t the term i s not i n t e n d e d 
t o encompass a b u s i n e s s 
p a r t n e r 
w i t h whom the 
owner and/or d e v e l o p e r 
of 
a 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
i s 
engaged i n a j o i n t v e n t u r e ; 
r a t h e r , LCD 
a r g u e s , "the p u b l i c " 
g e n e r a l l y 
r e f e r s 
t o 
the 
u l t i m a t e 
p u r c h a s e r 
of 
a 
l o t once 
i n i t i a l development of the s u b d i v i s i o n i s complete. 
The Trapp 
d e f e n d a n t s , however, urge us t o a p p l y a b r o a d e r d e f i n i t i o n of 
8 
1110838 
the 
term 
" t h e p u b l i c " 
t o i n c l u d e , 
e s s e n t i a l l y , 
anyone. 
U l t i m a t e l y , however, i t 
i s 
u n n e c e s s a r y f o r 
us t o d e f i n e t h e 
term " t h e p u b l i c " because, 
r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n we 
a s c r i b e t o 
t h e 
term, t h e c o n t r a c t between LCD and Trapp would 
n o n e t h e l e s s be v o i d because i t v i o l a t e s a p r o h i b i t i o n i n t h e 
MCSR. 
The county s u b d i v i s i o n - c o n t r o l s t a t u t e s c o n t e m p l a t e t h e 
a d o p t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s by t h e d i f f e r e n t c o u n t i e s 
g o v e r n i n g t h e 
manner i n which s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e approved and 
d e v e l o p e d i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
See, e.g., § 1 1 - 2 4 - 1 ( c ) , 
A l a . Code 1975 ("The county commission o r l i k e g o v e r n i n g body 
of 
each 
c o u n t y i n t h e s t a t e may 
e s t a b l i s h a b o a r d o f 
d e v e l o p e r s t o 
make s u g g e s t i o n s t o 
t h e 
commission r e g a r d i n g t h e 
development 
and d i v i s i o n o f s u b d i v i s i o n s . 
The b o a r d may 
a d v i s e t h e commission on t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , 
r e v i s i o n s t h a t need t o 
be made t o 
t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , and a s s i s t 
i n r e s o l v i n g d i s p u t e s 
between t h e 
commission and d e v e l o p e r s . ) ; 
§ 11-24-2(b), A l a . 
Code 1975 ("No p r o p o s e d 
p l a t 
s h a l l be 
approved o r d i s a p p r o v e d by t h e 
c o u n t y commission w i t h o u t f i r s t 
b e i n g r e v i e w e d by t h e 
county e n g i n e e r o r h i s o r 
h e r d e s i g n e e . 
F o l l o w i n g 
t h e r e v i e w , t h e c o u n t y 
e n g i n e e r o r h i s o r h e r 
9 
1110838 
d e s i g n e e s h a l l c e r t i f y t o 
t h e 
commission whether t h e p r o p o s e d 
p l a t meets t h e c o u n t y ' s r e g u l a t i o n s . 
I f 
t h e p r o p o s e d 
p l a t 
meets 
t h e 
r e g u l a t i o n s , 
i t s h a l l 
be 
approved 
by t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n . " ) ; and 
§ 1 1 - 2 4 - 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("The county 
commission may employ i n s p e c t o r s and 
may r e q u e s t t h e county 
l i c e n s e i n s p e c t o r t o see t h a t i t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e 
not v i o l a t e d 
" ) . 
Madison County has i n f a c t e n a c t e d such r e g u l a t i o n s and 
a complete copy o f t h e 
MCSR was s u b m i t t e d i n t o t h e r e c o r d by 
LCD 
a l o n g 
w i t h 
i t s summary-judgment 
m o t i o n . 
L i k e 
§ 
1 1 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , § 4.3 o f t h e MCSR p r o v i d e s t h a t a p e r m i t t o 
d e v e l o p a s u b d i v i s i o n may be o b t a i n e d a f t e r a p r o p o s e d p l a t 
i s 
s u b m i t t e d t o 
and 
approved by t h e 
county; § 4.3 f u r t h e r d e t a i l s 
the p r o c e d u r e f o r s e e k i n g a p p r o v a l o f t h a t p r o p o s e d 
p l a t . 
However, u n l i k e § 1 1 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , t h e 
MCSR p r o h i b i t t h e o f f e r i n g , 
s a l e , t r a n s f e r , o r l e a s e o f l o t s t o 
t h e 
p u b l i c even a f t e r 
t h e 
p r o p o s e d 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
p l a t i s approved; 
such 
a c t i v i t y i s 
p r o h i b i t e d u n t i l a f i n a l p l a t i s 
s u b m i t t e d and approved once 
the owner o r d e v e l o p e r d e c i d e s t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d 
s u b d i v i s i o n . 
See § 4.1 o f t h e 
MCSR ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t no l o t 
s h a l l "be o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , s o l d , t r a n s f e r r e d o r l e a s e d t o t h e 
10 
1110838 
p u b l i c u n t i l t h e f i n a l p l a t has 
been s u b m i t t e d t o 
and approved 
by t h e 
commission and 
t h e f i n a l p l a t has 
been r e c o r d e d i n t h e 
o f f i c e 
o f t h e p r o b a t e 
j u d g e " ) ; 
and § 4.4 o f t h e MCSR 
( d e s c r i b i n g t h e 
p r o c e d u r e f o r s u b m i t t i n g and g e t t i n g a p p r o v a l 
of t h e f i n a l 
p l a t ) . 
A s i d e from t h i s 
d i s t i n c t i o n , however, t h e 
MCSR 
c o n t a i n 
a n o t h e r p r o h i b i t i o n t h a t i s 
a p p l i c a b l e i n 
t h i s case. 
S e c t i o n 
1.2.3 
o f t h e 
MCSR 
p r o v i d e s : 
" P r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l 
s a l e , o f f e r i n g f o r s a l e , 
t r a n s f e r o r l e a s e o f any l o t s as d e f i n e d h e r e i n f o r 
the purpose o f c r e a t i n g , e s t a b l i s h i n g o r m o d i f y i n g 
a 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
as d e f i n e d 
h e r e i n , 
any owner o r 
d e v e l o p e r o f 
a s u b d i v i s i o n ... w h i c h l i e s w i t h i n t h e 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f 
t h e 
county s h a l l submit 
the p r o p o s e d p l a t o f 
t h e 
p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n ... 
t o 
the commission and o b t a i n 
f o r [ s i c ] a p p r o v a l o f t h e 
p r o p o s e d 
p l a t i n a c c o r d a n c e 
w i t h 
t h e p r o c e d u r e s 
p r e s c r i b e d by [§ 11-24-1 e t seq., 
A l a . Code 1975,] 
as amended, and 
s e t 
o u t 
i n 
t h e s e 
r e g u l a t i o n s . " 
Thus, 
t h i s 
r e g u l a t i o n 
r e q u i r e s an owner o r d e v e l o p e r o f a 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
t o submit and g a i n 
a p p r o v a l o f a 
p r o p o s e d 
s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t b e f o r e t h e s a l e o r o f f e r i n g f o r s a l e o f 
any 
l o t s " f o r t h e 
purpose o f c r e a t i n g , e s t a b l i s h i n g o r m o d i f y i n g 
a s u b d i v i s i o n . " 
N o t a b l y , t h e r e i s 
no language b a r r i n g 
o n l y 
t h o s e s a l e s o r o f f e r i n g s made t o "the 
p u b l i c . " 
11 
1110838 
I t has been LCD's p o s i t i o n t h r o u g h o u t 
t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n 
t h a t 
Trapp i s not p a r t 
o f " t h e p u b l i c " because he was 
e s s e n t i a l l y a p a r t n e r i n 
a j o i n t v e n t u r e c r e a t e d t o d e v e l o p 
H e r i t a g e L a n d i n g s . 
R e g a r d l e s s o f 
whether we agree t h a t he 
i s 
a member o f " t h e p u b l i c , " LCD cannot, i n l i g h t 
o f 
i t s 
p o s i t i o n , m a i n t a i n t h a t i t s attempt t o s e l l him l o t s was done 
f o r 
any purpose 
o t h e r 
than 
" c r e a t i n g , 
e s t a b l i s h i n g o r 
m o d i f y i n g a s u b d i v i s i o n , " and whether he was a member o f " t h e 
p u b l i c " i s i m m a t e r i a l t o t h a t i n q u i r y . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , because 
the 
c o n t r a c t LCD e n t e r e d 
i n t o r e q u i r e d LCD t o s e l l 
l o t s t o 
Trapp b e f o r e 
t h e p r o p o s e d p l a t f o r H e r i t a g e 
L a n d i n g s was 
approved, t h a t c o n t r a c t was i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 1.2.3 o f 
t h e 
MCSR. 
The summary judgment i n 
f a v o r o f 
t h e 
Trapp d e f e n d a n t s was 
t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r because t h e j u d i c i a l system may n o t 
be used 
t o e n f o r c e 
i l l e g a l c o n t r a c t s . See, 
e.g., 
Ex p a r t e W.D.J., 785 
So. 2d 390, 393 ( A l a . 2000) ("Moreover, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d 
t h a t '[a] p e r s o n cannot m a i n t a i n a cause o f a c t i o n i f , 
i n 
o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h i t , he must r e l y i n 
whole o r i n 
p a r t on an 
i l l e g a l o r immoral a c t 
o r t r a n s a c t i o n t o 
w h i c h he i s 
a p a r t y . ' 
H i n k l e v. R a i l w a y E x p r e s s Agency, 242 A l a . 374, 378, 6 So. 
2d 
12 
1110838 
417, 
421 
(1942). 
In Oden v. P e p s i C o l a B o t t l i n g Co., 
621 
So. 
2d 953 
( A l a . 1993), t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t the purpose of the 
H i n k l e r u l e i s t o ensure t h a t '"those who 
t r a n s g r e s s the m o r a l 
or 
c r i m i n a l code 
s h a l l 
not 
r e c e i v e 
a i d from the 
j u d i c i a l 
b r a n c h of government."' 
621 
So. 
2d a t 955 
" 
(emphasis 
o m i t t e d ) ) . 
See 
a l s o K i l g o r e Dev., 
I n c . v. Woodland 
P l a c e ,  
LLC, 
47 
So. 
3d 267, 
271 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2 0 1 1 ) ( h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
s u b d i v i s i o n - c o n t r o l s t a t u t e s were implemented t o p r o t e c t 
the 
p u b l i c , 
not 
t o r a i s e revenue, and 
t h a t c o n t r a c t s 
v i o l a t i n g 
t h o s e s t a t u t e s are a c c o r d i n g l y v o i d ) . 
Indeed, the p o l i c y b e h i n d t h i s p r i n c i p l e has been deemed 
t o be of such i m p o r t a n c e t h a t c o n t r a c t s found t o v i o l a t e 
the 
law w i l l not be e n f o r c e d even i f , as has been a l l e g e d i n t h i s 
case, 
the 
d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y 
f a i l e d 
t o 
p r o p e r l y 
p l e a d 
the 
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of 
i l l e g a l i t y . 
Brown v. Mountain Lakes  
R e s o r t , I n c . , 521 So. 2d 24, 26 
( A l a . 1988) 
( " ' " I t i s the r u l e 
... i n Alabama and a few o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o not e n f o r c e 
a 
c o n t r a c t i n v i o l a t i o n of the law and t o deny the p l a i n t i f f 
the 
r i g h t t o r e c o v e r upon a t r a n s a c t i o n c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c p o l i c y , 
even i f the i n v a l i d i t y of the c o n t r a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n be 
not 
s p e c i a l l y 
p l e a d e d 
and 
i s 
d e v e l o p e d 
by 
the 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
13 
1110838 
e v i d e n c e . " ' " 
( q u o t i n g N a t i o n a l L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s . 
Co. v.  
M i d d l e b r o o k s , 
27 A l a . App. 247, 249, 170 So. 84, 86 
(1936), 
q u o t i n g i n t u r n S h e a r i n v. P i z i t z , 208 A l a . 244, 246, 94 So. 
92, 93 
( 1 9 2 2 ) ) ) . 
IV. 
LCD sued the Trapp d e f e n d a n t s a f t e r Trapp f a i l e d t o c l o s e 
on t h e p u r c h a s e o f 51 
l o t s i n a new 
s u b d i v i s i o n LCD was 
d e v e l o p i n g , as r e q u i r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d 
i n t o by LCD 
and Trapp. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d a summary judgment i n 
f a v o r 
o f the Trapp 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a f t e r 
h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
LCD's 
c o n t r a c t w i t h Trapp was v o i d because i t 
v i o l a t e d § 11-24-2(a) 
. 
W h i l e 
e x p r e s s i n g 
no 
o p i n i o n 
w i t h 
r e g a r d 
t o whether 
t h a t 
c o n t r a c t v i o l a t e d § 1 1 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , we n e v e r t h e l e s s h o l d t h a t t h e 
c o n t r a c t was v o i d because i t v i o l a t e d § 1.2.3 o f t h e MCSR. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c o r r e c t l y 
e n t e r e d 
a summary 
judgment 
i n 
f a v o r 
o f 
t h e 
Trapp 
d e f e n d a n t s 
on 
LCD's 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m , as w e l l as LCD's o t h e r c l a i m s , which 
were dependent on t h a t c o n t r a c t . 
The judgment o f t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t i s a c c o r d i n g l y 
a f f i r m e d . 
AFFIRMED. 
Malone, C.J., and P a r k e r , Shaw, and Wise, J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
14