Court Opinion

ID: 9931592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 15:05:54.771912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:26.311215
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0645-MR

JAMES BOSTICK AND CASEY
BOSTICK                                                            APPELLANTS

               APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER T. COHRON, JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 23-CI-00399

BOWLING GREEN-WARREN
COUNTY CONTRACTOR’S
LICENSING BOARD                                                        APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND MCNEILL,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: James Bostick and Casey Bostick (“Appellants”)

appeal from an order of the Warren Circuit Court granting summary judgment in

favor of Bowling Green-Warren County Contractor’s Licensing Board

(“Appellee”). Appellants argue that the circuit court improperly relied on hearsay

in granting summary judgment and in permanently enjoining Appellants from
engaging in contracting work in Warren County, Kentucky. After careful review,

we find no error and affirm the order on appeal.

                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Appellee is authorized pursuant to Chapter 6-13 of the Bowling

Green, Kentucky Code of Ordinances to grant contractor’s licenses in Warren

County, Kentucky. In order to obtain a license, a party must comply with various

requirements including proof of worker’s compensation, liability, and

unemployment insurance, and must agree to abide by applicable local, state, and

federal statutes and regulations. Maintenance of the license requires continuing

education and annual reapplication.

             Appellants previously maintained a contractor’s license in Warren

County and operated under the name “A Day in the Sun LLC.” During

Appellants’ period of licensure, Appellee received three consumer complaints

alleging that Appellants received payment for swimming pool construction that

was never completed. Appellee asserts that the complaints resulted in criminal

prosecutions, after which Appellants each entered guilty pleas to multiple felonies.

As part of their criminal sentence, Appellants were required to pay joint and

several restitution in the amount of $93,628.15.

                                        -2-
             After the convictions, Appellants allowed their contractor’s license to

expire. According to Appellee, Appellants were told that as a prerequisite to re-

licensure, they would have to demonstrate compliance with the restitution order.

             On March 15, 2023, Appellee received information that Appellants

were operating a business in Warren County, under the name “Pool Pros Liners &

More.” The information indicated that Appellees had quoted a price to a customer

for a project in Warren County and produced a written estimate. Based on this

information, and its knowledge of Appellants’ criminal history and lack of

licensure, Appellee filed the instant action in Warren Circuit Court seeking to

permanently enjoin Appellants from operating as contractors in Warren County.

After Appellants answered the complaint, Appellee filed a motion for summary

judgment.

             In response to the motion, Appellants argued that a genuine issue of

material fact existed sufficient to overcome Appellee’s motion for summary

judgment. Specifically, they maintained that they were not engaged in contracting

work in Warren County, but rather that James Bostick was an employee of a

company called “The Pool Guys.” Following briefs and oral argument, the Warren

Circuit Court rendered an order granting Appellee’s motion for summary

judgment, and permanently enjoined Appellants from engaging in contracting

work in Warren County, Kentucky. This appeal followed.

                                         -3-
                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 56.03. “The record must be

viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary

judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v.

Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991). Summary

judgment should be granted only if it appears impossible that the nonmoving party

will be able to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his favor. Id.

“Even though a trial court may believe the party opposing the motion may not

succeed at trial, it should not render a summary judgment if there is any issue of

material fact.” Id. Finally, “[t]he standard of review on appeal of a summary

judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine

issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.” Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996).

                         ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS

             Appellants deny having performed contracting work without a license

in Warren County, and argue that the Warren Circuit Court erred in granting

                                          -4-
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellants maintain that Appellee’s

affidavit in support of its complaint was based on mere hearsay rather than the

personal knowledge of the affiant. They direct our attention to case law which

they claim supports their contention that an affidavit containing mere hearsay is

insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment. Appellants request that we

engage in de novo review of Appellee’s motion, and argue that, on review, the

inadmissible hearsay cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that no material fact

remains for adjudication. Appellants also note that the affidavit of James Bostick

disputes the hearsay allegation and assert that the record is otherwise insufficient to

sustain Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

             Appellee responds that Appellants’ hearsay argument was not raised

below and was not considered by the circuit court; therefore, it is not preserved for

appellate review. As for Appellee’s affidavit, they argue that it was properly

executed by Appellee’s Executive Director, Holly Warren, and demonstrates that

no material facts remain for adjudication. They also point out that the affidavit

was supported by a February 5, 2023 invoice from “Pool Pros Liners & More,”

demonstrating that Appellants were engaged in contracting work without a license

in Warren County. They argue that summary judgment was properly entered.

             We agree with Appellee that Appellants’ hearsay argument was not

raised below and was not considered by the circuit court; therefore, it is not

                                          -5-
preserved for appellate review. To attempt compliance with Kentucky Rules of

Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 32(A)(4),1 which requires a statement at the

beginning of the argument showing that the issue was properly preserved for

review, Appellants cite their response to Appellee’s motion for summary

judgment. That response, however, does not contain any argument that Appellee’s

affidavit improperly relied on hearsay. We find this argument nowhere in the

circuit court record. As such, and per Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky.

App. 2010), we will review Appellants’ appeal only for manifest injustice.

Manifest injustice requires a showing of the probability of a different result, or that

the error in the proceeding was of such magnitude as to be shocking or

jurisprudentially intolerable. Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3-4 (Ky.

2006).

                The question for our consideration, then, is whether Appellants have

proven the probability of a different result but for the alleged error, or that the error

was of such magnitude as to be shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable. Id. After

carefully reviewing the record and the law, we must answer this question in the

negative.

                In sustaining Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, the Warren

Circuit Court relied on a properly executed affidavit of Appellee’s Executive

1
    Formerly CR 76.12(4)(c)(v).

                                           -6-
Director, alleging that Appellants were engaged in contracting work in Warren

County without a license. The information in support of the affidavit was not mere

conjecture, but consisted of a written estimate on “Pool Pros Liners & More”

letterhead, with the customer’s name and address, quoting a price of $12,200.00

for the installation of an inground spa. The estimate showed an email address

appearing to be that of Appellant James Bostick. In addition, James Bostick

acknowledged in his affidavit: that he incorporated “Pool Pros Liners & More,

LLC”; that he was the registered agent and sole owner of the corporation; and, that

Appellants do not possess a license to engage in contracting work in Warren

County.

             Further, Ms. Warren’s affidavit asserted the following: that several

consumer complaints were filed against Appellants in the past resulting from

fraudulent contracting work; that felony charges resulted against both Appellants;

that Appellants entered guilty pleas; and, that restitution was ordered in the amount

of $93,628.15. Appellants have not denied these claims. Ms. Warren stated that in

order to re-establish licensure, proof of restitution payment would be required. No

such proof has been tendered.

             Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Cadleway

Properties, Inc. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 338 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. App.

2010), should have prevented the circuit court from considering an affidavit

                                         -7-
containing hearsay evidence. Again, this argument was not raised below, and is

not preserved for appellate review. Hallis, supra. Arguendo, even if this argument

were preserved, Cadleway merely recognizes that an affidavit in support of

summary judgment “shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in

evidence[.]” Cadleway, 338 S.W.3d at 288 (quoting CR 56.05). We believe that if

Appellee’s complaint had proceeded to trial, Appellee could have properly sought

the admission of the written estimate on “Pool Pros Liners & More, LLC”

letterhead, upon which it supported its allegation that Appellants were engaged in

contracting work in Warren County without a license. As such, even if this

argument were properly preserved, it would not have formed a basis for reversing

the order on appeal.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on Hallis and Martin, supra, and the totality of the record, we

do not find error of such magnitude as to be shocking or jurisprudentially

intolerable, nor that a different result was probable but for the alleged error. The

record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that there was no genuine dispute

that Appellants do not possess a license issued by Appellees, and engaged in

contracting work in Warren County. Mr. Bostick’s claim that he was acting

merely as an employee for another company is undermined by the estimate made

on “Pool Pros Liners & More” letterhead, and his acknowledgment that he is the

                                         -8-
registered agent and sole owner of the corporation. Accordingly, we find no

manifest injustice. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the

Warren Circuit Court.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:                   BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Matthew J. Baker                         Scott A. Bachert
Bowling Green, Kentucky                  Colton W. Givens
                                         Bowling Green, Kentucky

                                        -9-