Anne Marks, individually, and as personal representative of the estate of Robert E. Marks, Sr. v. Reston Construction, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/21/2011 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 R e p o r t e r . 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 o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y 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 b e 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 R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091204 Anne Marks, i n d i v i d u a l l y , and as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Robert E. Marks, S r . v. Reston C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CV-07-192) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Anne M a r k s , i n d i v i d u a l l y , a n d a s p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e e s t a t e o f Robert a partial E. M a r k s , S r . ("Bobby"), a p p e a l s summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e T u s c a l o o s a from Circuit 2091204 Court Inc. ("the trial court") ("Reston"). We i n favor dismiss the of Reston appeal Construction, as being from a n o n f i n a l judgment. Bobby complaint and on his wife, February 15, Anne Marks 2007, i n the Reston. In t h e i r complaint, were t h e first alleged, had ("Anne"), trial court built by Reston in 1998 M a r k s e s f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e h o u s e had " E x t e r i o r I n s u l a t i o n and F i n i s h i n g S y s t e m " or a against the Markses a s s e r t e d t h a t owners o f a h o u s e i n T u s c a l o o s a , been filed they which, they 1999. The been c l a d i n an ("EIFS"), which i s a " m u l t i - l a y e r e d e x t e r i o r w a l l system[] c o n s i s t i n g of a f i n i s h coat, are a base coat, mechanically other substrate" stucco." mesh, and or w i t h and According an i n s u l a t i o n board, a l l of adhesive secured i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o to the complaint, an which to plywood as or "synthetic engineering report conducted at the M a r k s e s ' request r e v e a l e d numerous e r r o r s i n the construction EIFS a p p l i c a t i o n and other defects. The Markses a s s e r t e d t h a t they h i r e d Reston to r e c l a d t h e i r house; that, by June 2004, t h e EIFS c l a d d i n g had r e p l a c e d w i t h b r i c k ; t h a t m o l d was been subsequently removed discovered; t h a t Reston agreed t o remediate the mold i n t h e i r h o u s e ; 2 and and 2091204 t h a t R e s t o n p e r f o r m e d work i n t h a t r e g a r d The Markses continued Reston further to again grow alleged in in their complaint house the undertook i n December after those to alleviate the that mold repairs, that mold and p r o b l e m i n December 2005, and t h a t t h e r e p a i r s and were again improperly performed and m o l d were d i s c o v e r e d upon a l a t e r The claims Markses hiring, asserted supervision, fraudulent suppression; breach of c o n t r a c t . June 28, and 2007. of high concentrations negligent fraudulent moisture remediation i n s p e c t i o n of training; 2004. the repair; negligent house. negligent remediation; misrepresentation; The M a r k s e s f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t Reston f i l e d t h e amended c o m p l a i n t an answer t o t h e on November 6, of complaint and on and 2007. On December 30, 2008, R e s t o n f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t Bobby, r e q u e s t i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a Release and allegedly Indemnity been signed Agreement" by i n s u r e r from l i a b i l i t y . " the r i g h t s , Bobby release") " d i s c h a r g i n g Reston that had and its Reston sought a judgment d e c l a r i n g o b l i g a t i o n s , and r e s p e c t t o t h e r e l e a s e and ("the "General l i a b i l i t i e s of the p a r t i e s w i t h o r d e r i n g the Markses to 3 indemnify 2091204 Reston f o r the claims a s s e r t e d against Reston i n the Markses' complaint A as l a s t suggestion alleging o f d e a t h was t h a t Bobby h a d d i e d the p e r s o n a l was amended. filed on F e b r u a r y on J a n u a r y 26, 2009. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Bobby's e s t a t e s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Bobby on a l l c l a i m s and 16, 2009, Anne, as ("the e s t a t e " ) , counterclaims. Anne, i n d i v i d u a l l y , and as t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the estate, filed an F e b r u a r y 16, 2009. answer to Reston's counterclaim On May 22, 2009, R e s t o n f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t last amended b a s e d on the release and f o r the entry judgment d e c l a r i n g i t s r i g h t t o i n d e m n i t y , terms o f t h e r e l e a s e . summary-judgment On July 6, summary-judgment pertinent on Anne f i l e d as of a a l s o b a s e d on t h e an o p p o s i t i o n t o Reston's m o t i o n on June 17, 2009. 2009, the trial court granted Reston's m o t i o n ; the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e d , i n part: " I t i s undisputed [Bobby] signed a 'General R e l e a s e and I n d e m n i t y A g r e e m e n t ' on M a r c h 14, 2005. The r e l e a s e i s p o o r l y w o r d e d and a p p e a r s t o be a form type document, or combination of forms, p r e p a r e d a n d s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s w i t h o u t legal assistance. Nevertheless, after considering a l l appropriate materials on f i l e , the release i s e f f e c t i v e t o b a r any ' c l a i m s , demands, damages, 4 2091204 a c t i o n s , c a u s e s o f a c t i o n o r s u i t s o f any k i n d o r nature whatsoever, i n law or e q u i t y , whether r e a l , i n c h o a t e , known o r unknown, b o t h t o p e r s o n a n d property' up t o M a r c h 14, 2005, b y o r t h r o u g h [ B o b b y ] o r h i s e s t a t e , a n d b y [ A n n e ] who ratified t h e r e l e a s e . T h u s , summary j u d g m e n t i s t e n d e r e d i n f a v o r of Reston C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . a g a i n s t [Anne, i n d i v i d u a l l y , a n d as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e , ] f o r a l l a l l e g e d acts or omissions up t h r o u g h M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 5 . " R e s t o n a l s o f i l e d a summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n regarding the ' i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n ' language i n the document, c l a i m i n g t h a t [ B o b b y ' s ] e s t a t e i s r e q u i r e d to indemnify and hold Reston harmless. The i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n language i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y c e r t a i n t o [ e n t e r ] summary j u d g m e n t , as t h e r e a p p e a r t o be genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t regarding the scope. Summary j u d g m e n t i s d e n i e d on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . "The c a s e w i l l be s e t f o r a s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e what c l a i m ( s ) r e m a i n t o be t r i e d . I t i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r w h e t h e r any a c t o r o m i s s i o n o f R e s t o n a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d a f t e r M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 5 . The summary j u d g m e n t i s n o t made f i n a l a t t h i s t i m e . " On A u g u s t 5, 2009, Anne f i l e d or vacate the t r i a l on A u g u s t 11, 2 0 0 9 . court's a motion t o a l t e r , amend, j u d g m e n t ; t h a t m o t i o n was denied On May 25, 2010, R e s t o n f i l e d m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e r e m a i n i n g filed 12, claims. an o p p o s i t i o n t o t h a t m o t i o n on J u l y 7, 2010. 2010, t h e t r i a l court entered "there On J u l y claims, s t a t i n g a r e no g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t 5 Anne a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f R e s t o n on Anne's a n d t h e e s t a t e ' s r e m a i n i n g that a renewed regarding 2091204 any s u b s e q u e n t a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s and [ R e s t o n ] i s e n t i t l e d a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " j u d g m e n t as f i n a l , noting that pending. The t r i a l On A u g u s t counterclaim on R e s t o n ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m , the appeal might affect the On A u g u s t 9, 2010, order the and case a d m i n i s t r a t i v e docket. Supreme Civ. indemnity P., remained a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e outcome o f counterclaim. Alabama for A l a . R. 6, 2010, R e s t o n f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t a y t h e trial staying court c e r t i f i e d i t s pursuant to Rule 54(b), Reston's to determination the t r i a l transferring Anne f i l e d Court on of that court entered the case an to i t s a n o t i c e of appeal to the August 23, 2010; that court t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t , pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. Anne argues entering on appeal that the a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r trial court erred of Reston because, by she says, the t r i a l c o u r t m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the terms of the r e l e a s e . B e f o r e we a d d r e s s t h a t a r g u m e n t , we f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e of the trial court's r e v i e w on a p p e a l . (Ala. C i v . App. summary j u d g m e n t of our I n G r e g o r y v. F e r g u s o n , 10 So. 3d 596, 597 2008), t h i s court f o r purposes finality stated: " N e i t h e r p a r t y has r a i s e d t h e i s s u e appropriateness of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s Rule 6 of the 54(b)[, 2091204 Ala. R. Civ. P.,] certification of its summary-judgment o r d e r . However, t h i s c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h a t i s s u e ex mero motu b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e whether a judgment or o r d e r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l t o s u p p o r t an a p p e a l i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . Owen v. H o p p e r , 999 So. 2d 953, 955 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g T r o u s d a l e v. Tubbs, 929 So. 2d 1020, 1022 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ) ; see a l s o S u m m e r l i n v. S u m m e r l i n , 962 So. 2d 170 ( A l a . 2007) ( d e t e r m i n i n g , ex mero motu, t h a t a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e under the f a c t s of the c a s e ) . C e r t i f i c a t i o n s of f i n a l i t y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54(b) o f an otherwise i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s h o u l d n o t be r o u t i n e l y e n t e r e d and s h o u l d be made o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s . B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 ( A l a . 1987). "'In some i n s t a n c e s , a Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n may n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e . When p e n d i n g c l a i m s " ' a r e so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d t h a t s e p a r a t e a d j u d i c a t i o n w o u l d p o s e an unreasonable risk of inconsistent r e s u l t s , ' " o u r c o u r t s may d e t e r m i n e a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o be i n v a l i d . G r a y v. C e n t r a l Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a , N.A., 519 So. 2d 477, 479 ( A l a . 1987) ( q u o t i n g B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (Ala. 1987)). ' "BB & S Gen. Assocs., Inc., 2 00 7)." In Gregory, b a s e d on, at 597. Contractors, Inc. 979 So. 2d 121, 123 Gregory among o t h e r filed a complaint G r e g o r y had against t h i n g s , b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . Ferguson counterclaimed, f a l s e l y represented v. Thornton & ( A l a . C i v . App. t h a t he was f a i l e d t o pay a l l e g i n g that Ferguson 10 So. Gregory a l i c e n s e d c o n t r a c t o r and subcontractors 7 3d had that G r e g o r y had h i r e d , as 2091204 was r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . at 597. The t r i a l of Ferguson court entered on G r e g o r y ' s j u d g m e n t as f i n a l , counterclaims that both pursuant a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r and c e r t i f i e d t o Rule remained pending. Gregory's counterclaims claims claims 10 So. 3d 54(b), Id. against that summary while This Ferguson's court determined Ferguson and Ferguson's against Gregory r e q u i r e d the r e s o l u t i o n of "the issue of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and t h e proper their c o n t r a c t o r agreement" and, t h u s , that enforcement of "'the p a r t i e s ' ... c l a i m s a r e d e p e n d e n t on e a c h o t h e r a n d a r e s o l u t i o n o f one c l a i m would impact the determination 598 (quoting Assocs., BB & S Gen. of the other.'" Contractors, I n c . , 979 So. 2d 121, 125 I n c . V. Id. at Thornton ( A l a . C i v . App. & 2007)). T h i s c o u r t then c o n c l u d e d t h a t G r e g o r y ' s c l a i m s and Ferguson's c o u n t e r c l a i m s were t o o c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d t o s u p p o r t t h e R u l e 54(b) certification, h a v i n g been t a k e n In t h e p r e s e n t a n d we dismissed Gregory's appeal as from a n o n f i n a l judgment. I d . case, the t r i a l court r e l i e d on t h e t e r m s o f t h e r e l e a s e i n e n t e r i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f R e s t o n on Anne's a n d t h e e s t a t e ' s c l a i m s . were disposed of pursuant to 8 an Thus, t h o s e interpretation of claims those 2091204 c o n t r a c t u a l terms. Similarly, the determination of Reston's counterclaim n e c e s s a r i l y requires the t r i a l court to i n t e r p r e t the terms o f t h e r e l e a s e . regard to Anne's counterclaim, and the In i n t e r p r e t i n g the release the trial estate's court claims is and first charged with Reston's with d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t e r m s a p p l y t o Anne's a n d t h e e s t a t e ' s claims against Reston. L i k e i n G r e g o r y , t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f one c l a i m would n e c e s s a r i l y impact the r e s o l u t i o n of the other. Moreover, indemnity a clause potentially determination summary determination by the trial court i s i n a p p l i c a b l e i n the present lead to of a those contradictory claims already result disposed that case from the could the o f by t h e judgment. We c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e c l a i m s and c o u n t e r c l a i m involved i n the present case a r e t o o c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t on Anne's and t h e e s t a t e ' s 54(b) See was i n a p p r o p r i a t e . claims as f i n a l pursuant t o Rule A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . G r e g o r y , 10 So. 3d a t 598. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.