Title: Sea Scaping Const. Co., Inc. v. McAtee
Citation: 402 So. 2d 919
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 24, 1981

402 So. 2d 919 (1981)
SEA SCAPING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Corporation,
v.
John Norville McATEE.
80-233.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 24, 1981.
T. Dwight Reid of Perloff, Reid &amp; Gibbons, Mobile, for appellant.
G. B. McAtee of Stokes &amp; McAtee, Mobile, for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
Appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.
The basic question concerns the right of a foreign corporation to recover damages in an Alabama court upon a cause of action based on contract when the foreign corporation *920 had not qualified to do business in Alabama at the time the contract was made.
Plaintiff is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Destin. Between November 1, 1979 and May 1980, pursuant to an oral agreement with the defendant, the plaintiff built a home for the defendant in Baldwin County. The alleged contract price was $61,936.55. The defendant paid $39,100.00, leaving a balance of $22,836.55. When the defendant did not pay the balance the plaintiff filed this action. The defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that plaintiff had failed to qualify to do business in Alabama, and (2) that the action was barred by res judicata based upon a prior dismissal. Because of our decision favoring the first ground we need not consider the second.
The defendant's motion to dismiss was accompanied by a letter purportedly from the Secretary of State of Alabama which recited that his office files disclosed "no record of a corporation by the above name." Subsequently a hearing was held on this motion and the trial court heard argument of counsel upon it. Following the hearing the trial court granted the motion. Under these circumstances it is apparent that the trial court treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgment and in so doing had before it the letter referred to.
The plaintiff raises before us a patent defect in that letter affecting its utilization as appropriate evidence under Rule 56. Plaintiff refers us to Rule 44(b) on proof of a lack of record. The rule requires any such statement to be "authenticated as provided in subdivision (a)(1) ... in the case of a domestic record...." The commentary to this rule states that Rule 44(b) is identical to the federal rule. The complementary federal rule requires that
It is clear that the letter in question, though bearing a signature purporting to be that of the Secretary of State, was not accompanied by any certificate verifying that signature and that person as the custodian. Accordingly, the letter was not self proving and was improper evidence for the purpose of summary judgment. Under the circumstances of this case, however, that error does not require a reversal of this case because in both brief and oral argument plaintiff has conceded that it was not qualified to do business in Alabama at the time the contract in question was executed. Plaintiff points out, however, that it did qualify to do business in Alabama before this action was filed and, accordingly, urges us to adopt a legal principle which would allow it (and all others similarly situated) to proceed in our courts under such a contract. Thus the question before us (and before the trial court) was one of law and not of disputed fact.
Adopting such a principle as plaintiff advocates would effect a substantial change in our law by amending Section 232 of our Constitution of 1901 and overruling a number of decisions of this Court rendered thereunder. Section 232 provides that:
The legislature has enacted a statute similar in nature, Code of 1975, § 10-2A-247:
We note that this language was also used in this section's predecessor statutes, Code of 1975, § 10-2-254 and Tit. 10, § 21(89), Ala. Code of 1940 (Recomp. 1973 Cum. Supp.). Also, under the Revenue and Taxation Code, Code of 1975, § 40-14-4, the legislature has provided:
The numerous decisions of this Court upholding the principle which denies the foreign corporation relief at its instance upon such contracts have recognized the severity of its imposition. Nevertheless, they have not deviated from its application, being aware that
The bar created by the Constitution and statutes has been upheld when the pleadings and evidence showed that the foreign corporation had failed to comply with this state's laws of qualification "before and at the date of the contract...." Cable Piano Co. v. Estes, 206 Ala. 95, 89 So. 372 (1921). This position has been affirmed repeatedly. See, e. g., Calvert Iron Works, Inc. v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 284 Ala. 655, 227 So. 2d 424 (1969); Computaflor Company, Inc. v. N. L. Blaum Const. Co., 289 Ala. 65, 265 So. 2d 850 (1972); Birmingham Terminal Associates, Inc. v. United Produce and Products Equipment Co., Inc., 289 Ala. 80, 265 So. 2d 863 (1972); C &amp; C Products, Inc. v. Premier Industrial Corp., 290 Ala. 179, 275 So. 2d 124 (1973) (such a contract does not give rise to any implied legal duty). See also Foxco Ind., Ltd. v. Fabric World, Inc., 595 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979).
The plaintiff has cited us to a number of jurisdictions which have held that compliance with qualification requirements after the instigation of suit satisfies the requirements. We have not been cited to the specific language of the constitutional or statutory provisions of those jurisdictions pertinent to our inquiry. We point out, however, that a number of sister jurisdictions follow the Alabama view that compliance must occur when the contract was made. Hutterian Brethren v. Haas, 116 F. Supp. 37 (D.Mont.1953); Dawn Construction Co. v. Paris Home Builders, Inc., 360 Mich. 281, 103 N.W.2d 410 (1960); Irvine &amp; Meirer v. Wienner, 212 Mich. 199, 180 N.W. 492 (1920). Such a compliance, moreover, *922 has been held not to "relate back." In re Conecuh Pine Lumber &amp; Mfg. Co., 180 F. 249 (M.D.Ala.1910); accord, Woods &amp; Co. v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150 (1875).
This Court, like its predecessors, recognizes with compassion the stern sanction imposed by this principle established by our Constitution and statutes. It is our duty, however, to uphold it. The judgment, therefore, must be, and is, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.