Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100388 Bella Investments, Inc. v. M u l t i Family S e r v i c e s , Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-08-3794) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . B e l l a Investments, Inc. ( " B e l l a " ) , appeals judgment e n t e r e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t M u l t i Family Services, a g a i n s t MFS. We d i s m i s s I n c . ("MFS"), the appeal. f r o m a summary Court i n favor of on a l l B e l l a ' s claims 2100388 I n June 2 0 0 3 , B e l l a e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h MFS f o r MFS t o s e r v e as t h e g e n e r a l contractor for the construction of a The hotel i n Gardendale. contract included a warranty p r o v i s i o n , warranting year from t h e i s s u a n c e in turn, contracted between the p a r t i e s MFS's w o r k f o r one o f the c e r t i f i c a t e of occupancy. with various other entities, MFS, including D a v i d & Company A r c h i t e c t s , I n c . ("David & Company"), t o s e r v e as the a r c h i t e c t s Danny Hawkins subcontractor The f o r the project Floor to i n s t a l l building inspected Covering tile ("Hawkins") to serve as a f l o o r i n g i n the h o t e l . inspector the hotel a n d Danny H a w k i n s d/b/a f o r the 5, 2006, on A p r i l City of and, t h a t i s s u e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f occupancy f o r the h o t e l . Gardendale same d a y , A t the time t h a t t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y was i s s u e d , s e v e r a l i s s u e s , including cracking outstanding tiles the f l o o r B e l l a a l s o made r e q u e s t s of the contract i n the h o t e l . cracking of tiles, a n d h a d b e e n l i s t e d on a p u n c h l i s t MFS t o remedy. provision i n some floor tiles f o r MFS According continued 2 of items f o r under t h e w a r r a n t y to repair to Bella, a n d MFS f a i l e d issue. remained cracked floor problems with t o remedy t h e 2100388 On A u g u s t 4, 2008, B e l l a his individual capacity, s u e d MFS, C. B o y d E d g e r t o n , David 1 & Company, and fictitiously complaint, various named d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t In i t s Bella negligence/wantonness, asserted negligent s u p p r e s s i o n , and b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . hiring Court. claims and in of supervision, Bella also asserted that MFS's s u b c o n t r a c t o r s were l i a b l e t o B e l l a b e c a u s e B e l l a was a t h i r d - p a r t y b e n e f i c i a r y t o t h e c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n MFS a n d t h e subcontractors. B e l l a t h e n moved t h e M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ; MFS a n d Edgerton j o i n e d B e l l a ' s motion to t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n . S e p t e m b e r , 30, 2008, t h e M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t the a c t i o n t o the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court On November reasserting 3, 2008, i t s claims Bella Court t r a n s f e r r e d ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) . amended and s u b s t i t u t i n g On i t s complaint, Layne Structural, G o n z a l e s S t r e n g t h & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , Tusco Fence, I n c . , and Whiten Pools f o r some o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants. 2 E d g e r t o n was a p r i n c i p a l i n MFS. The c l a i m s a g a i n s t E d g e r t o n i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y were l a t e r d i s m i s s e d . 1 Layne S t r u c t u r a l , Gonzales Strength & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , T u s c o F e n c e , I n c . , a n d W h i t e n P o o l s were a l l l a t e r d i s m i s s e d as d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e c a s e . 2 3 2100388 MFS answered allegations including Bella's and the asserting s t a t u t e of counterclaim its complaint, owed u n d e r t h e by contract. party complaint their individual certain 5, 2010, MFS failing t o pay also asserted MFS capacities, alleging filed the breached full amount third- B h a r t i Parmar, that the Parmars second amended in had w h i c h t h e y had n o t p a i d . a a asserted a I n a d d i t i o n , MFS a g a i n s t S u r e s h P a r m a r and Bella defenses, a l l e g i n g t h a t B e l l a had e x e c u t e d a n o t e i n f a v o r o f MFS, May a l l i t s material affirmative limitations. against Bella, c o n t r a c t w i t h MFS denying 3 On complaint, r e a s s e r t i n g i t s c l a i m s and s u b s t i t u t i n g H a w k i n s f o r one o f t h e fictitiously named On June 14, defendants. 2010, MFS moved t h e t r i a l j u d g m e n t on a l l B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t . c o u r t f o r a summary MFS asserted three bases i n support o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n : (1) t h a t a l l Bella's were claims limitations, as barred provided by in § the applicable statute 6-5-221, A l a . Code 1975; 3 The Parmars are p r i n c i p a l s 4 Section 6-5-221 p r o v i d e s , 4 in Bella. in pertinent part: "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s i n t o r t , c o n t r a c t , o r otherwise against any architect or engineer performing or f u r n i s h i n g the design, planning, 4 of (2) 2100388 t h a t B e l l a d i d not p r o v i d e contravention t h a t t h e r e was of no the MFS w i t h n o t i c e of i t s c l a i m s , i n c o n t r a c t between the parties; genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t Bella's suppression claim. MFS also submitted support o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . Bella and concerning evidence in filed a brief specifications, testing, supervision, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o r o b s e r v a t i o n o f any c o n s t r u c t i o n o f any i m p r o v e m e n t on o r t o r e a l p r o p e r t y , or a g a i n s t b u i l d e r s who c o n s t r u c t e d , or performed or managed t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f , an i m p r o v e m e n t on o r t o r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s i g n e d by and c o n s t r u c t e d u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o r o b s e r v a t i o n o f an architect or engineer, or designed by and constructed in accordance with the plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r e p a r e d by an a r c h i t e c t o r e n g i n e e r , f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f damages f o r : " ( i ) Any d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e design, planning, s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , t e s t i n g , s u p e r v i s i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , or o b s e r v a t i o n of the construction of any such i m p r o v e m e n t , o r any d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f any s u c h i m p r o v e m e n t ; or "(ii) Damage t o real or personal property c a u s e d by any such d e f e c t or d e f i c i e n c y ; or " ( i i i ) I n j u r y to or wrongful death a p e r s o n c a u s e d by any such d e f e c t deficiency; of or " s h a l l be commenced w i t h i n two y e a r s n e x t a f t e r a cause of action accrues or arises, and not thereafter." 5 (3) 2100388 i n o p p o s i t i o n t o MFS's summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d evidence i n support submitted of i t s b r i e f i n opposition. On S e p t e m b e r 23, 2010, t h e t r i a l court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MFS on a l l B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t . its order, the t r i a l court among o t h e r things, statute limitations. of stated that against "[t]his other supra note order requesting defendants 2. that that B e l l a ' s claims Defendants David only stated Bella The filed that the t r i a l not a f f e c t & Company ... determined, were b a r r e d summary-judgment shall still i t had and by t h e order also [Bella's] claims [Hawkins]," remaining a purported postjudgment alter, motion court denied. subsequently Supreme t o t h e Alabama supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l to See amend, o r v a c a t e i t s summary-judgment o r d e r , w h i c h t h e t r i a l appealed the i n the a c t i o n . court In to this Bella Court. court, Our pursuant § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary-judgment o r d e r d i s p o s e d o f o n l y the claims of B e l l a a g a i n s t MFS. An a p p e a l ordinarily lies o n l y f r o m t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . A l a . Code 1975, § 12¬ 22-2; Bean v. C r a i g , 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 judgment i s generally not f i n a l 6 unless ( A l a . 1990). a l lclaims, A or the 2100388 rights parte The or l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l p a r t i e s , H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 have b e e n d e c i d e d . Ex ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . o n l y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o f f i n a l i t y i s when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t s t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment pursuant 54(b), A l a . R. C i v . P. 5 Bean, 557 t o Rule So. 2d a t 1253. c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t B e l l a , MFS's t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m s MFS's against t h e P a r m a r ' s , a n d B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t D a v i d & Company a n d Hawkins remain pending summary j u d g m e n t from i n the t r i a l which Bella court. appealed Therefore, i s not a the final judgment. The pursuant that trial t o Rule court d i d not c e r t i f y t h e judgment 5 4 ( b ) , and, i n t h i s case, as i t does n o t a p p e a r s u c h a c e r t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d have b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e . facts regarding when B e l l a ' s c a u s e s final of a c t i o n accrued The and, a c c o r d i n g l y , when t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s b e g a n t o r u n , a r e 5 Rule 54(b) p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When more t h a n one c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i s p r e s e n t e d i n an a c t i o n , whether as a c l a i m , counterclaim, c r o s s - c l a i m , o r t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m , o r when m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f judgment." 7 2100388 also relevant t o the claims Bella asserted against David & Company a n d H a w k i n s , w h i c h c l a i m s r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l court. Moreover, B e l l a ' s claims a g a i n s t David & Company a n d H a w k i n s a r i s e o u t o f t h e same s e t o f common f a c t s a s B e l l a ' s claims a g a i n s t MFS. disfavored. Bd. See L o a c h a p o k a W a t e r A u t h . , o f Auburn, (Ala. Alabama, Piecemeal a p p e l l a t e review "'[r]epeated pursuant t o Rule appellate review w o u l d be a p r o b a b i l i t y ' " ) . against Bella So. 3d , S m i t h v . S l a c k A l o s t Dev. S e r v s . o f L L C , 32 So. 3d 556, 562 certification I n c . v . W a t e r Works [Ms. 1091297, June 24, 2011] 2011) ( q u o t i n g of cases i s a n d MFS's (Ala. 2009))(noting that 5 4 ( b ) was i n a p p r o p r i a t e when o f t h e same u n d e r l y i n g I n a d d i t i o n , MFS's third-party claims facts counterclaim against the Parmars, which remain pending i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a l s o i n v o l v e the same s e t o f f a c t s a s B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t MFS, D a v i d Company, a n d H a w k i n s . See P a l m e r v. R e s o l u t i o n T r u s t 613 So. 2d 373, 376 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o l d i n g & Corp., that the t r i a l court e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c e r t i f y i n g a summary-judgment o r d e r as final resolution the under Rule 5 4 ( b ) when of the appeal issues necessary to the were common t o i s s u e s n e c e s s a r y r e s o l u t i o n of s t i l l - p e n d i n g 8 counterclaims). to 2100388 Because appeals the summary-judgment i s not a f i n a l certification of the order from judgment, and because summary-judgment order which Bella a Rule 54(b) would not be a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s c a s e , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n taken from a n o n f i n a l judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Moore, 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.