Title: Ex parte Renovations Unlimited, LLC, Brian Ford, and Olivia Ford. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Melissa Trehern and Riley Trehern v. Renovations Unlimited, LLC, Brian Ford, and Olivia Ford)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1090812
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 2010

REL:10/15/2010
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, 2010-2011
_________________________
1090812
_________________________
Ex parte Renovations Unlimited, LLC; Brian Ford; and Olivia
Ford
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Melissa Trehern and Riley Trehern
v.
Renovations Unlimited, LLC; Brian Ford; and Olivia Ford)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-08-900437)
COBB, Chief Justice.
Renovations Unlimited, LLC, and Brian Ford and Olivia
Ford, the owners of Renovations Unlimited (hereinafter
1090812
2
referred to collectively as "the petitioners"), petition this
Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit
Court to vacate its order issued on March 9, 2010, requiring
the petitioners to produce documentary evidence to Melissa
Trehern and Riley Trehern in response to the Treherns' Rule
27, Ala. R. Civ. P., motion for preaction discovery.  Because
we find that the Treherns have waived all possible claims
against the petitioners and thus do not have a cognizable
cause of action, we grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
On or about November 7, 2006, the Treherns entered into
a contract with Renovations Unlimited, LLC, pursuant to which
Renovations Unlimited would demolish a house in Montgomery and
oversee the construction of a new house on the same lot.  The
contract provided that the Treherns would pay Renovations
Unlimited a fee of $55,000 for overseeing the construction of
the new house and that the Treherns would be responsible for
the 
construction 
costs. 
 
As 
construction 
progressed,
Renovations Unlimited submitted draw requests to the Treherns
for payments due for such things as subcontractors and
materials.  
1090812
According to the petitioners, the Treherns never
1
requested this information until after the parties had
executed a general release of all claims.
3
In October or November 2007, a dispute arose between the
petitioners and the Treherns concerning the draw requests that
ultimately resulted in the Treherns terminating their contract
with Renovations Unlimited before the construction of the
house was completed.  Specifically, the petitioners claimed
that, at the time they terminated the contract, the Treherns
owed Renovations Unlimited approximately $25,000 to $30,000;
the Treherns claimed that Renovations Unlimited had not
accurately submitted draw requests and had improperly used the
proceeds it had received from the draw requests.  The Treherns
requested that Renovations Unlimited provide them a full and
complete copy of its invoices, draw requests, and other
documents and records concerning the construction of the
house.  On November 12, 2007, Renovations Unlimited provided
the Treherns' lender all the requested information.1
According to the petitioners, the Treherns contacted them
on November 13, 2007, and inquired as to whether a settlement
could be reached regarding the parties' dispute.  The
petitioners contend that the Treherns proposed that the
1090812
The release originally provided for a settlement amount
2
of $10,000.  However, because the Treherns claimed that a
bathroom sink had been broken while it was in the possession
of Renovations Unlimited, the parties struck through the
$10,000 and wrote $9,800 into the release as the settlement
amount.
4
dispute be settled through a reduction in the amount the
Treherns owed Renovations Unlimited.  On November 15, 2007,
the Treherns and the petitioners executed a "Mutual General
Release of All Claims" in which the Treherns agreed to pay the
petitioners $9,800 in exchange for ending all relationships
and obligations between the parties.   The release contained
2
the following pertinent clauses:
"II.  MUTUAL RELEASES
"The Treherns hereby release and discharge [the
petitioners] from any and all claims, demands, causes
of 
action, 
damages, 
obligations, 
liabilities,
injuries, losses and expenses of whatsoever kind or
nature which relate in any manner to the home located
[in] Montgomery, Alabama[,] whether or not, now known
or suspected or claimed, whether in law, arbitration,
equity or otherwise.
"....
"Without 
limiting 
the 
generality 
of 
the
foregoing, all parties acknowledge and covenant that,
in consideration for the terms set forth herein, the
parties knowingly and voluntarily relinquish, waive
and forever release any and all rights, damages and
remedies which might otherwise be available to the
parties, including, without limitation, claims for
contract or tort damages of any type, back pay, front
1090812
5
pay, emotional damages, mental damages, damages for
anguish or anxiety, punitive damages, incentive pay,
liquidated 
damages, 
special 
or 
consequential 
damages,
lost benefits of any kind, severance pay, recovery of
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses of any kind,
injuries of any kind, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, tort of outrage, State and Common Law
fraud, including deceit and reckless or wanton
conduct, suppression, Common Law civil conspiracy,
negligent misrepresentations, and/or intentional
interference with business relations.
"....
"VIII. KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER AND RELEASE
"It is understood and agreed upon that this
Release is executed by the parties knowingly and
voluntarily and is not based upon representations or
statements of any kind by any person as to the
merits, legal liabilities or value of the released
claims.  The parties also acknowledge that no promise
or inducement has been offered or made except as set
forth herein."
The following appeared in bold type before each signature line
for the parties on the release:
"CAUTION: READ BEFORE SIGNING
"THIS DOCUMENT CHANGES YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.  BY
SIGNING, YOU ARE MAKING A MATERIAL REPRESENTATION
THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND
BY THIS DOCUMENT."
(Capitalization in original.)
The Treherns contend that days after the release was
executed by the parties the petitioners provided a document
1090812
6
that contained a general summary of the costs of the
construction project.  The document, however, failed to
identify many of the vendors and suppliers by name, address,
or other contact information.  The Treherns allege that when
they did contact the vendors for which contact information had
been supplied, the petitioners' attorney tried to thwart their
attempts by accusing them of violating the terms of the
release.
On April 23, 2008, the Treherns filed a verified petition
for preaction discovery, pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ.
P., in the Montgomery Circuit Court.  In their petition, the
Treherns stated: "The [Treherns] believe that the draw
requests submitted by Renovations Unlimited are more than the
actual charges which it incurred and are otherwise excessive
and in breach of the construction contract" and "[t]he
requested documents and things are needed by the [Treherns] in
order to determine whether they have contract, tort, or
warranty claims against Renovations Unlimited, LLC, and/or its
members/owners, Brian and Olivia Ford, and without such
documents and things, the [Treherns] are unable to bring or
cause any such claims to be brought."  The petitioners
1090812
7
objected, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion on
June 10, 2008.  During the hearing, the trial court suggested
that as an alternative to preaction discovery the Treherns
might be able to obtain the information they sought by
directly contacting the vendors and suppliers.  The Treherns
on June 13, 2008, submitted to the trial court an affidavit
saying they had attempted to contact the vendors and suppliers
before the court suggested they do, but they had been stopped
by the petitioners' attorney.  On June 16, 2008, the Treherns
amended their petition for preaction discovery.  In their
amended petition, the Treherns alleged for the first time that
the release was "void on grounds of fraud, thereby giving rise
to a cognizable claim against the [petitioners]."  The trial
court held a second hearing on the matter on March 2, 2010,
and on March 9, 2010, entered an order granting the Treherns'
petition and ordering the petitioners to produce the requested
documents to the Treherns' attorney within 30 days.  On March
16, 2010, the petitioners sought mandamus relief in this
Court.
Standard of Review
"'A writ of mandamus will be "issued
only when there is: 1) a clear legal right
1090812
8
in the petitioner to the order sought; 2)
an imperative duty upon the respondent to
perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so;
3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and
4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the
court."  Ex parte United Serv. Stations,
Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993).'
"Ex parte Horton Homes, Inc., 774 So. 2d 536, 539
(Ala. 
2000). 
 
Regarding 
discovery 
matters
specifically, this Court has stated:
"'Discovery matters are within the
trial court's sound discretion, and this
Court will not reverse a trial court's
ruling on a discovery issue unless the
trial 
court 
has 
clearly 
exceeded 
its
discretion.  Home Ins. Co. v. Rice, 585 So.
2d 859, 862 (Ala. 1991). ...'"
Ex parte Guaranty Pest Control, Inc., 21 So. 3d 1222, 1225-26
(Ala. 2009).
Discussion
The Treherns seek preaction discovery pursuant to Rule
27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.  Rule 27(a), in pertinent part, states:
"(1) Petition.  A person who desires to
perpetuate that person's own testimony or that of
another person or to obtain discovery under Rule 34
or 35 regarding any matter that may be cognizable in
any court of this state may file a verified petition
in the circuit court in the county of the residence
of any expected adverse party.  The petition shall be
entitled in the name of the petitioner ... and shall
ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take
the depositions of the persons to be examined named
in the petition, for the purpose of perpetuating
1090812
9
their testimony or to seek discovery under Rule 34 or
35 from the persons named in the petition."
Concerning preaction discovery under Rule 27, this Court has
noted:  
"Although Alabama Rule 27 does not give a potential
plaintiff 'carte blanche' to 'fish' for a ground for
filing an action, it nonetheless provides for
preaction 'discovery under Rule 34,' regardless of
any need to perpetuate evidence, provided that the
requirements of the rule are met and that the trial
court is satisfied that such discovery might serve to
prevent a failure or delay of justice.  As previously
noted, relief under Rule 27 is discretionary with the
trial court, and a trial court's ruling on a Rule 27
petition will not be reversed in the absence of an
abuse of discretion."
Ex parte Anderson, 644 So. 2d 961, 964 (Ala. 1994) (emphasis
ommitted).  Furthermore, review of a trial court's grant or
denial of a verified petition seeking preaction discovery
pursuant to Rule 27 is by a petition for a writ of mandamus.
See Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., 757 So. 2d 371 (Ala.
1999).
The petitioners argue that the trial court exceeded its
discretion in granting the Treherns' petition for preaction
discovery because, they argue, the Treherns relinquished,
waived, and/or released their right to pursue legal action
against the petitioners by executing the release and thus no
1090812
10
longer have  "an action cognizable in a court of this state"
as required by Rule 27(a)(1).  As previously noted, by
executing the release, the Treherns 
"release[d] and discharge[d] [the petitioners] from
any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
damages, obligations, liabilities, injuries, losses
and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature which
relate in any manner to the home located [in]
Montgomery, Alabama[,] whether or not, now known or
suspected or claimed, whether in law, arbitration,
equity or otherwise." 
The release also provided that the parties voluntarily and
knowingly agreed to the release of their claims.  Further, the
release cautioned the parties in bold capital letters above
each signature line that they should read the release before
signing it because it changed the parties' legal rights.  As
this Court has previously held:  "Thus, absent fraud, a
release, supported by valuable consideration and unambiguous
in meaning, will be given effect according to the intention of
the parties from what appears in the four corners of the
document itself; and parol evidence is not admissible to
impeach or vary its terms."  Wayne J. Griffin Elec., Inc. v.
Dunn Constr. Co., 622 So. 2d 314, 317 (Ala. 1993).  Therefore,
barring fraud in the inducement of the release,  the Treherns
1090812
11
do not have a cognizable claim that may be brought against the
petitioners in an Alabama court.
In their verified petition to the trial court the
Treherns stated that preaction discovery was necessary "in
order to determine whether [the Treherns] have contract, tort,
or warranty claims against [the petitioners]."  Before this
Court, the Treherns contend that this includes discovery as to
whether "Renovations Unlimited fraudulently and otherwise
unlawfully induced the Treherns to enter into the subject
release and settlement agreement by, among other things,
misrepresenting to and/or suppressing from them the truth
regarding the accuracy of their draw requests and actual
incurred charges on the construction projects."  
A fatal flaw, however, exists in the Treherns' argument.
The genesis of the dispute between the Treherns and the
petitioners 
was 
the 
allegation 
by 
the 
Treherns 
that
Renovations Unlimited was not submitting accurate draw
requests and/or was improperly using the proceeds received
from those draw requests.  In their answer and brief to this
Court, the Treherns state that they "requested Renovations
Unlimited to provide them a full and complete copy of its
1090812
12
invoices, draw requests, and its other documents and records
regarding the project, but Renovations Unlimited refused to
comply with the Treherns' requests."  (Treherns' brief, p. 1.)
The Treherns knew that the amount of the draws and the use of
the draw requests were at the center of their dispute with the
petitioners, yet they settled their claims against the
petitioners and signed the release before they received the
requested documents.  The release warned the Treherns in bold
capital letters that they were modifying their legal rights by
entering into the release, and yet they did so.   As this
Court has previously held:  "[A] person who signs a contract
is on notice of the terms therein and is bound thereby, even
if he or she fails to read the document."  Locklear Doge City,
Inc. v. Kimbrell, 703 So. 2d 303, 306 (Ala. 1997).  If the
Treherns were concerned about the veracity of any statements
made by the Fords concerning where and how the draws were
used, then they should not have released their right to bring
an action against the petitioners.  A broad general accusation
that there may have been fraud in some form or fashion in the
inducement of the release does not warrant the granting of
preaction discovery.
1090812
13
Because we conclude that the Treherns do not have a
potentially cognizable claim that may be brought in the courts
of Alabama, we hold that the trial court exceeded its
discretion in granting the Treherns' petition seeking  to
conduct preaction discovery pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R.
Civ. P.  The petition for the writ of mandamus is granted, and
the trial court is ordered to vacate its order allowing for
preaction discovery and to dismiss the Treherns' petition for
preaction discovery.  
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Woodall, Smith, Parker, and Shaw, JJ., concur.