Gary Harrison and Patsy Harrison v. Family Home Builders, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/4/11 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100524 Gary H a r r i s o n and Patsy H a r r i s o n v. Family Home B u i l d e r s , LLC Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-292) BRYAN, J u d g e . Gary H a r r i s o n judgment i n favor and Patsy Harrison of Family Home B u i l d e r s , L L C ("FHB"). We a f f i r m i n part, reverse appeal i n p a r t , a n d remand. from a summary 2100524 F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l On J a n u a r y 5, 2007, t h e H a r r i s o n s written contract ("the contract") History and FHB e n t e r e d i n which p e r f o r m r e m o d e l i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n work FHB into a agreed to ("the work") on t h e H a r r i s o n s ' e x i s t i n g h o u s e i n L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y . FHB b e g a n t h e w o r k ; h o w e v e r , on May contract before 4, 2007, t h e H a r r i s o n s terminated the FHB h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e work. On J u l y 16, 2007, t h e H a r r i s o n s of breach of c o n t r a c t , negligence, their breach-of-contract s u e d FHB, s t a t i n g claims and f r a u d . As t h e b a s i s o f c l a i m , t h e H a r r i s o n s a l l e g e d (1) t h a t FHB h a d a g r e e d t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r o v i d e d b y t h e H a r r i s o n s and h a d f a i l e d t o do s o ; (2) t h a t FHB h a d f a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e w o r k ; (3) t h a t FHB had agreed to applicable building the work performed workmanship; supervise had (5) perform the work in c o d e s and h a d f a i l e d by that FHB had defects FHB had failed accordance t o do s o ; (4) t h a t i n materials to coordinate t h e w o r k i n an e f f i c i e n t m a n n e r ; and overbilled the Harrisons f o r costs with (6) t h a t not r e l a t e d and and FHB to the work. As the b a s i s of t h e i r negligence 2 claim, the Harrisons 2100524 alleged that Harrisons FHB by had b r e a c h e d the duty of care failing to perform t h e work i t owed t h e in a workmanlike manner, b y f a i l i n g t o p e r f o r m t h e w o r k i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r o v i d e d b y t h e H a r r i s o n s , b y failing t o c o m p l e t e t h e w o r k i n a t i m e l y manner, b y f a i l i n g t o p e r f o r m t h e w o r k i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e b u i l d i n g c o d e s , and by failing to coordinate and s u p e r v i s e t h e work i n a p r o p e r manner. As t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r f r a u d c l a i m , t h e H a r r i s o n s t h a t , w h i l e i t was p e r f o r m i n g to the Harrisons performing the that work misrepresentations, and t h e w o r k , FHB h a d certain and costs that, the Harrisons in were alleged misrepresented incurred reliance on in those h a d p a i d FHB f o r m a t e r i a l s l a b o r c o s t s t h a t had not been i n c u r r e d i n t h e performance of t h e work. Answering, Harrisons' complaint FHB complaint. t o add a trained, supervised, claim") for denied The claim the m a t e r i a l Harrisons that FHB a l l e g a t i o n s of the later had amended negligently their hired, and r e t a i n e d ("the n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n K y l e Gean, t h e i n d i v i d u a l who h a d s u p e r v i s e d t h e work FHB. A n s w e r i n g , FHB d e n i e d t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e 3 2100524 H a r r i s o n s ' amended On March judgment 29, with complaint. 2010, respect FHB moved for a to the Harrisons' partial fraud summary claim. The Harrisons f i l e d no e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h a t m o t i o n , a n d the t r i a l court entered an o r d e r g r a n t i n g i t on May 20, 2 0 1 0 . On A u g u s t 17, 2010, FHB moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect to the breach-of-contract claim, the negligence claim, and t h e n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n c l a i m . FHB a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was not liable allegation accordance said, f o r breach of contract or negligence that with based failed the plans the Harrisons specifications that i t had to perform and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s had s u b s t a n t i a l l y b a s e d on t h e the work because, FHB changed t h e p l a n s and a f t e r t h e c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d . FHB i t was n o t l i a b l e on t h e a l l e g a t i o n f o r breach of contract that or asserted negligence i t had f a i l e d t o complete the work b e c a u s e , FHB s a i d , i t was e n t i t l e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e of time t o complete t h e work b e c a u s e s p e c i f i e d a date f o r completion t i m e was o f t h e e s s e n c e terminated of time in the contract neither o f t h e work n o r s t a t e d and t h e H a r r i s o n s t o c o m p l e t e t h e w o r k . FHB a s s e r t e d that had u n i l a t e r a l l y t h e c o n t r a c t b e f o r e FHB h a d h a d a r e a s o n a b l e 4 amount that amount i t was n o t 2100524 liable f o r breach allegation that accordance said, with of i t had that or negligence failed to based perform the on the work in t h e a p p l i c a b l e b u i l d i n g codes because, the Harrisons indicating contract had FHB not produced had failed to substantial perform FHB evidence i t s work in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e b u i l d i n g c o d e s and, e v e n i f FHB had failed applicable Harrisons correct to perform i t s work b u i l d i n g codes, had not g i v e n FHB before c o n t r a c t . FHB asserted that i n material Harrisons had indicating that with indicated that a reasonable failures defects accordance the evidence such contract or negligence in the the amount o f t i m e t o unilaterally terminating i t was n o t l i a b l e the f o r breach of b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e r e were and workmanship because, failed to there produce were defects FHB s a i d , the substantial in evidence materials and w o r k m a n s h i p . FHB a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was n o t l i a b l e f o r b r e a c h o f contract failed or negligence to coordinate based on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t and s u p e r v i s e t h e w o r k i n an manner b e c a u s e , FHB s a i d , t h e H a r r i s o n s substantial coordinate evidence indicating and s u p e r v i s e that efficient had f a i l e d t o produce FHB had t h e w o r k i n an e f f i c i e n t 5 i t had failed to m a n n e r . FHB 2100524 a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was n o t l i a b l e on the allegation that f o r breach of contract i t had overbilled based the Harrisons b e c a u s e , FHB s a i d , t h e H a r r i s o n s h a d a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e y h a d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t FHB h a d o v e r b i l l e d t h e m . F i n a l l y , asserted that i t was because, i t said, not l i a b l e f o r negligent supervision the H a r r i s o n s had not produced substantial e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Gean was FHB other supported things, FHB incompetent. i t s summary-judgment the deposition motion testimony of with, Gean among and the c o n t r a c t . Gean t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s . He was n o t an e m p l o y e e o f FHB; he acted estimate signed as a subcontractor of of the cost FHB o f t h e work b e f o r e and i n s u p e r v i s i n g t h e work after i n preparing an the contract was the contract was s i g n e d . B e f o r e t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t , he d i s c u s s e d t h e w o r k w i t h t h e H a r r i s o n s a n d s u b m i t t e d an e s t i m a t e t o t h e m . H i s e s t i m a t e was b a s e d on d r a w i n g s p r o v i d e d b y t h e H a r r i s o n s a n d q u o t e s he h a d r e c e i v e d from vendors a n d s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . The d r a w i n g s on w h i c h he b a s e d h i s e s t i m a t e showed t h e a d d i t i o n o f an o u t d o o r k i t c h e n , of t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e windows f r o m t h e b a c k t h e h o u s e , t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e windows f r o m t h e g a r a g e , t h e removal of the doors from the garage, 6 the a d d i t i o n of a 2100524 c o n c r e t e pad, located and t h e r e m o d e l i n g o f a bedroom i n t h e w e s t e r n end of the and house. Based bathroom on those d r a w i n g s , Gean e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e work w o u l d c o s t $109,000 and would take approximately contract was signed, Madelyn H e r e f o r d , example, kitchen i n March was f o u r months t o c o m p l e t e . A f t e r the Harrisons made s u b s t a n t i a l and A p r i l changed, 2007, the s i z e and their the decorator, changes t o t h e w o r k . For the s i z e of a p a v i l i o n of the outdoor was changed, a p o r c h was a d d e d t o t h e w e s t e r n s i d e o f t h e h o u s e , a p o r c h was added t o " t h e bay addition" to the house, sidewalks were added, t h e b a y a d d i t i o n t o t h e h o u s e was e n l a r g e d a n d c h a n g e s were made t o t h e r e c e s s e d t u b , t h e m a n t e l , t h e f i r e p l a c e , t h e tray ceiling, the coffee b a r , t h e windows, and the french d o o r s i n t h a t a d d i t i o n . T h o s e c h a n g e s i n c r e a s e d t h e amount o f t h e work t o be p e r f o r m e d , i n c r e a s e d t h e c o s t o f t h e work, delayed the performance of required that accordance some o f t h e work with estimated that completed when c o n t r a c t on May t h e work the original approximately the 4, that 2007. 7 those had been drawings one-half Harrisons because be changes completed i n redone. o f t h e work unilaterally and had terminated Gean been the 2100524 The contract expressly provided signing signed that of the contract b y t h e p a r t i e s on J a n u a r y 5, 2007, a l l representations were merged made b e f o r e t h e i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t . The c o n t r a c t n e i t h e r s p e c i f i e d a date f o r completion nor s t a t e d t h a t t i m e was o f t h e e s s e n c e . M o r e o v e r , i t d i d n o t s p e c i f y a t o t a l p r i c e f o r the work. Instead, the H a r r i s o n s and, o f t h e work i tprovided would pay a l l the costs of performing i n a d d i t i o n , w o u l d p a y FHB a c o n t r a c t o r ' s amount o f 13% o f t h o s e costs. In a d d i t i o n , that t h e work fee i n the the contract r e q u i r e d FHB t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p l a n s a n d specifications "the provided by the Harrisons and t o comply with c o n s t r u c t i o n requirements of a l l l o c a l b u i l d i n g codes." In opposition Harrisons t o FHB's summary-judgment motion, the a s s e r t e d ( 1 ) t h a t FHB's f a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e work was c a u s e d b y i t s i n c o m p e t e n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h e c h a n g e s made t o the plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a f t e r t h e c o n t r a c t (2) t h a t FHB's contention that the Harrisons was signed; had f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t FHB h a d f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e b u i l d i n g c o d e s h a d no m e r i t ; ( 3 ) t h a t FHB's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e H a r r i s o n s h a d f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e work p e r f o r m e d b y FHB 8 2100524 was d e f e c t i v e had no m e r i t ; Harrisons had failed i n d i c a t i n g t h a t FHB (4) t h a t FHB's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e to of substantial evidence had f a i l e d t o c o o r d i n a t e and s u p e r v i s e work i n a p r o p e r manner h a d question produce no f a c t w h e t h e r FHB time to complete the merit; had had work when t h e and the (5) t h a t i t was a reasonable Harrisons amount terminated a of the contract. As e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , the H a r r i s o n s submitted, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e a f f i d a v i t s G a r y H a r r i s o n and D e r r i c k C o f f m a n and to FHB's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . In testified as estimated that his f o l l o w s . Before the the work w o u l d the H a r r i s o n s ' affidavit, contract cost was Gary t h r e e t o f o u r months t o c o m p l e t e ; h o w e v e r , when t h e terminated t h e c o n t r a c t on May approximately and 50% $145,000 had 4, 2007, FHB o f t h e work, y e t answers Harrison signed, $109,500 and of would Gean take Harrisons had p e r f o r m e d o n l y c o s t s o f b e t w e e n $135,000 a l r e a d y been i n c u r r e d . Gary H a r r i s o n f u r t h e r testified: "As s t a t e d i n my a t t o r n e y ' s t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r , t h e work p e r f o r m e d b y [ F H B ] was n o t p e r f o r m e d i n a c o m p e t e n t and w o r k m a n l i k e manner i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e b u i l d i n g c o d e s . ... I n o u r a n s w e r t o [ F H B ' s ] i n t e r r o g a t o r y number 4, my w i f e and I l i s t e d a number o f e x a m p l e s o f d e f e c t i v e work p e r f o r m e d b y 9 2100524 [FHB] a t our house. ... " D u r i n g the c o u r s e of p e r f o r m a n c e of the j o b by [ F H B ] , we experienced a recurrent problem with [FHB's] n o t properly manning the job. [FHB's] e m p l o y e e s were n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y on t h e j o b on a d a i l y b a s i s and we e x p e r i e n c e d some weeks i n w h i c h t h e r e were no e m p l o y e e s o f [FHB] on t h e j o b a t a l l . On o t h e r o c c a s i o n s , we saw one o r two o f [FHB's] e m p l o y e e s a t o u r h o u s e w o r k i n g when a f u l l c r e w was e x p e c t e d and n e e d e d . "Our j o b a l s o was n o t p r o p e r l y s u p e r v i s e d by K y l e Gean, [FHB's] r e p r e s e n t a t i v e on t h e s i t e . K y l e was n o t on o u r j o b on a r e g u l a r b a s i s and t h i s was p e r h a p s b e c a u s e we l e a r n e d he was w o r k i n g on o t h e r j o b s a t t h e same t i m e as he was b e i n g p a i d t o work a t o u r h o u s e . Mr. Gean f a i l e d t o o r d e r m a t e r i a l s n e e d e d f o r use i n t h e work i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n [ ] as w e l l as he o r d e r e d m a t e r i a l s w h i c h were n o t s u i t a b l e f o r use a t o u r h o u s e and t h i s r e q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r m a t e r i a l s t o be r e o r d e r e d . Mr. Gean d i d n o t p r o p e r l y s c h e d u l e t h e work o r p r o p e r l y c o o r d i n a t e t h e work o f t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s and h i s e m p l o y e e s w o r k i n g a t our h o u s e . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e s h e e t r o c k man was s c h e d u l e d t o s h e e t r o c k when t h e room t o be s h e e t r o c k e d was n o t p r e p a r e d and as a r e s u l t h i s work had t o be r e s c h e d u l e d . The p a v i l i o n o v e r h e a d c o n s t r u c t i o n was begun before the brick wall and header were a d d r e s s e d and t h i s c a u s e d w o r k t o be s t o p p e d on t h e o u t s i d e a d d i t i o n . D e f e c t i v e w o r k p e r f o r m e d by [FHB] a l s o had t o be t o r n o u t and r e d o n e and t h e r e p a i r w o r k n e c e s s i t a t e d a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o be p e r f o r m e d . F i n a l l y , Mr. Gean d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e d r a w i n g s , p l a n s and d i r e c t i o n s o f M a d e l y n H e r e f o r d , our interior d e c o r a t o r , and R o b e r t Weber, o u r a r c h i t e c t , and t h e work p r e s c r i b e d by them was n e v e r u n d e r t a k e n by [FHB] and t h i s l e d t o a d i s o r g a n i z e d work p r o g r e s s schedule. a "The f a i l u r e o f [FHB] t o c o m p l e t e o u r p r o j e c t i n t i m e l y and reasonable manner i s due to the 10 2100524 i n c o m p e t e n t , n e g l i g e n t a n d s u b s t a n d a r d w o r k o f [FHB] as o u t l i n e d a b o v e . I f [FHB] h a d p r o p e r l y manned t h e j o b , f o l l o w e d t h e d i r e c t i o n s o f o u r a r c h i t e c t and interior designer, properly supervised and c o o r d i n a t e d t h e work o f i t s e m p l o y e e s a n d o t h e r s u b c o n t r a c t o r s working a t t h e p r o j e c t and performed i t s work i n a w o r k m a n l i k e m a n n e r , o u r p r o j e c t w o u l d have b e e n c o m p l e t e d b y m i d A p r i l 2007. P r i o r t o t e r m i n a t i n g [ F H B ] , I a s k e d [FHB] t o commit t h a t i t c o u l d c o m p l e t e my p r o j e c t b y May 18, 2007, b u t [FHB] r e f u s e d t o make t h a t commitment. I subsequently t e r m i n a t e d [FHB's] c o n t r a c t a n d h i r e d C o f f m a n C u s t o m Homes t o c o r r e c t a n d r e p a i r [FHB's] work a n d complete t h e work w h i c h [FHB] h a d f a i l e d t o complete." FHB's interrogatory number referred to i nhis affidavit, 4, which Gary Harrison asked the Harrisons t o describe any i n s t a n c e s o f FHB's work t h a t t h e y c o n t e n d e d were n e g l i g e n t o r d e f e c t i v e . I n answer t o t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y , t h e H a r r i s o n s stated: " C o n c r e t e was p o u r e d w i t h o u t a n y v a p o r b a r r i e r , w i r e mesh o r c o n t r o l ( e x p a n s i o n ) j o i n t s . C o n c r e t e b l o c k s under weight b e a r i n g w a l l s o f p a v i l i o n and outdoor k i t c h e n were l a i d 4" t o o h i g h a n d h a d t o be sawed off. Concrete had e x c e s s i v e cracking in a l l d i r e c t i o n s a n d t h e c r a c k s were o f g o o d s i z e . An e r r o r i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e amount o f c o l o r n e e d e d f o r c o l o r i n g t h e c o n c r e t e was made c a u s i n g t h e c o n c r e t e on t h e w e s t e n d o f h o u s e t o have t o be p o u r e d on a d i f f e r e n t d a t e . T h e r e were no u t i l i t i e s p u t u n d e r t h e c o n c r e t e p a d ( e x c e p t f o r a d r a i n t h a t was i n s t a l l e d i m p r o p e r l y ) a n d t h e c o l o r was u n e v e n a n d s p l o t c h y l o o k i n g . The s e a l e r a p p e a r s t o have b e e n p u t on b e f o r e t h e c o n c r e t e h a d c o m p l e t e l y cured, causing bubbling. Concrete was n e v e r s c o r e d a s a g r e e d a n d t h e r e were l o w s p o t s w h i c h a l l o w e d w a t e r 11 2100524 t o s t a n d . I n some a r e a s o f t h e s l a b t h e c o n c r e t e was s l o p e d t o w a r d the house which would a l l o w water t o g e t u n d e r n e a t h t h e h o u s e . T h e r e were s p o t s where t h e s e a l e r was t h i c k e r t h a n i n o t h e r a r e a s , m a k i n g s h i n y s p o t s . K y l e Gean h a d homeowner t o h a n d d i g t h e w a l k w a y on t h e r i v e r s i d e o f t h e p o o l and showed t h e e l e v a t i o n t o be u s e d . A f t e r t h e w a l k w a y was dug, l i m e s t o n e g r a v e l began t o 'weep' f r o m u n d e r t h e r e t a i n e r w a l l o f t h e p o o l , c a u s i n g an e v e n t u a l s e t t l i n g and c r a c k i n g o f t h e p o o l r e t a i n e r w a l l and d e c k . Spa t u b f r a m i n g ( b a n g e r s t r u c t u r e ) was i n contact with the ground but pressure treated m a t e r i a l was n o t u s e d and c o n c r e t e f o o t e r was n o t adequate t o h o l d weight of tub f i l l e d w i t h water. Header across windows on west end of new c o n s t r u c t i o n (bathroom) was n o t t o c o d e . C o n c r e t e pad b e s i d e garage door e n t r a n c e had h i g h s p o t s which w o u l d n o t a l l o w p a d t o d r a i n . Downspout a t p a d was n o t r u n u n d e r c o n c r e t e . L o a d b e a r i n g w a l l i n new w a l k - i n c l o s e t was n o t b u i l t on a d o u b l e f l o o r j o i s t and was t h e r e f o r e n o t p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d . S h r u b s and p l a n t s were s t a c k e d o v e r t o one s i d e on e a c h end o f h o u s e f o r r e u s e , b u t i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m was s e v e r e l y damaged so as t o p r e v e n t w a t e r i n g o f s h r u b s w h i c h subsequently died. Irrigation system was hit numerous t i m e s d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n w i t h o u t h a v i n g t h e p r o b l e m a r e a s m a r k e d and t h e i r r i g a t i o n system c o n t r o l l e r was f o u n d l a y i n g o u t i n t h e w e a t h e r u n d e r a row o f s h r u b s . P a v i l i o n f r a m i n g was n o t done a c c o r d i n g t o code and h a d t o be t o r n down and r e b u i l t . The ' I - j o i s t s ' t h a t were p u r c h a s e d f o r use on t h e P a v i l i o n c e i l i n g were c u t on a d i a g o n a l c o n t r a r y t o t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and has deemed them i n o p e r a b l e . Two s e t s o f F r e n c h d o o r s t h a t were o r d e r e d by K y l e Gean were d e l i v e r e d b u t were i n c o r r e c t i n t h a t e a c h F r e n c h d o o r h a d t e n (10) l i g h t s i n s t e a d o f f i v e (5) l i g h t s p e r d o o r and h a d t o be r e - o r d e r e d . One of the French doors was s u p p o s e d t o be 4 f e e t w i d e b u t t h e o r d e r was f o r a f i v e - f o o t d o o r . The o r d e r f o r t h e new d o o r s and windows was n o t p l a c e d i n a t i m e l y manner and somewhat d e l a y e d t h e p r o j e c t . Brick facing to 12 2100524 P a v i l i o n f o o t e r was l a i d i n c o r r e c t l y a n d h a d t o be t o r n away a n d r e - l a i d . When t h e b r i c k f a c i n g t o t h e c o n c r e t e p a d was r e - l a i d , i t c h a n g e d t h e s p a c i n g on t h e b r i c k a n d s e v e r a l o f t h e m o r t a r j o i n t s (rows) were e x c e s s i v e l y w i d e . The f o o t e r t o t h e P a v i l i o n and o u t d o o r k i t c h e n was n o t l o w enough c a u s i n g t h e g r o u n d n e x t t o p o o l d e c k t o be h i g h e r t h a n t h e p o o l d e c k i t s e l f . B r i c k c o l o r d i d n o t m a t c h t h e b r i c k on t h e o r i g i n a l h o u s e a n d w i l l have t o be s t a i n e d t o make m a t c h . T r a y c e i l i n g s i n t h e m a s t e r b a t h a r e a were i n s t a l l e d a n d h a d t o be t o r n o u t a n d r e ¬ installed. Electrical plugs and l i g h t fixture mounting boxes a r e i n s t a l l e d a l o n g w i t h t h e w i r i n g but w i r i n g i s not connected t o a c i r c u i t breaker box. West b a t h r o o m w a l l b u i l t a n d t h e n f u r r e d o u t t o a p p r o x i m a t e a 2" x 6" w a l l ( a c t u a l l y 1 x 6") a n d t h e window t h a t was o r d e r e d was 5 which leaves a 1 [ s i c ] v o i d t h a t must be f u r r e d o u t . The f l o o r of t h e new p a r t o f t h e bathroom was built a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5/16" h i g h e r t h a n t h e f l o o r i n t h e o r i g i n a l p a r t . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y w i l l c o s t more i n time f o r t h e t i l e s e t t e r having t o taper this d i s c r e p a n c y out over the width of the f l o o r . Corners of f a s c i a boards are b u t t j o i n e d r a t h e r than m i t e r j o i n t s as a r e u s e d a r o u n d t h e r e s t o f t h e h o u s e . S h e e t r o c k man was s c h e d u l e d t o i n s t a l l s h e e t r o c k on two d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s b u t t h e h o u s e was n o t r e a d y f o r h i m t o s t a r t . Homeowner a n d 3 men w o r k e d 1 H days t o p r e p a r e room. I n s u l a t i o n was n o t scheduled and a f t e r showing up t h e s h e e t r o c k i n s t a l l e r went home f o r 2 d a y s b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g j o b . T r i m work a n d s h e e t r o c k were t o r n up on t h e n o r t h w a l l o f t h e c l o s e t and guest b a t h area b u t s h o u l d n ' t have b e e n a n d h a d t o be r e p l a c e d . F i r e a c c e s s was n o t i n s t a l l e d [ i n ] a t t i c a r e a o f new a d d i t i o n which i s a g a i n s t code." D e r r i c k Coffman's a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d : "My name i s D e r r i c k C o f f m a n , I am o v e r t h e age of twenty-one and a r e s i d e n t c i t i z e n o f Lauderdale C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . I have p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e 13 2100524 facts hereinafter stated in this Affidavit. " I am self-employed as a r e s i d e n t i a l home builder. I am and have b e e n f o r s e v e r a l years l i c e n s e d as a r e s i d e n t i a l home b u i l d e r by t h e Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e B o a r d o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . As s u c h , I am f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e v a r i o u s b u i l d i n g c o d e s w h i c h a r e and have b e e n i n e f f e c t e s t a b l i s h i n g standards f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n and/or r e n o v a t i o n of residences i n t h i s State. I know t h e [ H a r r i s o n s ] . I was i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e [ H a r r i s o n s ] t h r o u g h work w h i c h my firm, Coffman Custom Homes, p e r f o r m e d a t t h e [ H a r r i s o n s ' ] h o u s e ... p u r s u a n t t o a c o s t p l u s c o n t r a c t . My c o s t p l u s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e H a r r i s o n s was made sometime a f t e r t h e y had t e r m i n a t e d t h e i r c o n t r a c t w i t h [FHB]. My s c o p e o f work i n c l u d e d r e p a i r i n g any d e f e c t i v e work p e r f o r m e d by [FHB] as w e l l as c o m p l e t i n g t h e work which [FHB] had failed to complete under i t s a g r e e m e n t w i t h Mr. and Mrs. H a r r i s o n . " I am f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e work p e r f o r m e d by [FHB] a t t h e H a r r i s o n s ' r e s i d e n c e b a s e d on my i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e work p r i o r t o e n t e r i n g i n t o my c o n t r a c t w i t h the H a r r i s o n s as w e l l as t h e p r o b l e m s my firm e n c o u n t e r e d l a t e r as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e c t i v e w o r k m a n s h i p o f [FHB] a t t h e r e s i d e n c e . The work g e n e r a l l y p e r f o r m e d by [FHB] w h i c h I o b s e r v e d a t t h e H a r r i s o n r e s i d e n c e g e n e r a l l y d i d not comply w i t h the s t a n d a r d s o f t h e S o u t h e r n B u i l d i n g Code o r f o r t h a t m a t t e r f a i l e d t o c o n f o r m w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d s o f any o t h e r b u i l d i n g code w i t h w h i c h I am f a m i l i a r a n d / o r w i t h s t a n d a r d s o f good w o r k m a n s h i p . The negligent and defective workmanship of [FHB] at the [ H a r r i s o n s ' ] h o u s e c r e a t e d a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s and e x p e n s e s f o r t h e H a r r i s o n s i n r e p a i r i n g [FHB's] i n c o m p e t e n t work. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e c o n c r e t e p a d a t t h e r e a r o f t h e h o u s e had t o be c o m p l e t e l y t o r n o u t and r e b u i l t b e c a u s e o f e x c e s s i v e c r a c k i n g . T h e r e were numerous o t h e r e x a m p l e s o f i n c o m p e t e n t and n e g l i g e n t workmanship, l i k e t h e p a v i l i o n work, b u t 14 2100524 t i m e and s p a c e do n o t a l l o w me problems i n t h i s a f f i d a v i t . to l i s t a l l of these "[FHB's] work a t t h e H a r r i s o n s ' r e s i d e n c e was substandard, d i d not conform w i t h the standards of t h e S o u t h e r n B u i l d i n g Code o r any o t h e r code and was n o t p e r f o r m e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s t a n d a r d s o f good b u i l d i n g p r a c t i c e . I n c l u d i n g the c o s t of t e a r i n g out a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f [FHB's] work, t h e c o s t t o t h e [ H a r r i s o n s ] f o r r e p a i r i n g t h e work o f [FHB] was $151,411.55. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e [ H a r r i s o n s ] p a i d my f i r m an a d d i t i o n a l sum f o r c o m p l e t i n g [FHB's] work. I estimate [FHB] had c o m p l e t e d o n l y a b o u t fifty percent (50%) o f i t s work u n d e r i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e H a r r i s o n s and, as s t a t e d , most o f t h i s work had t o be removed and r e p l a c e d o r r e p a i r e d . " FHB moved affidavits were to Coffman or and because deposition FHB filed minimum." FHB FHB's were FHB with not in personal FHB deposed support from its Coffman's Coffman's testimony amount o f t i m e t o c o m p l e t e t h e work and cited and the the work Harrisons was Harrisons of given that t h a t the that that on Thereafter, excerpts asserted statements based brief Coffman's not testimony FHB they and contained supplemental motion attached. a reasonable between a FHB's c o n t e n t i o n Coffman's Harrison's c o n s t i t u t e d hearsay. summary-judgment supported Gary on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e y inadmissible knowledge strike had r e q u i r e d by "a one the year a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t Coffman's t e s t i m o n y contention that the changes 15 in the contract project at supported plans and 2100524 s p e c i f i c a t i o n s made by t h e H a r r i s o n s and t h e i r decorator c a u s e d d e l a y s i n FHB's p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work and f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y by had cited the Coffman: " [ B y FHB's a t t o r n e y ] Q. I f t h e p l a n s were t o c h a n g e , would t h a t cause i t t o take l o n g e r ? "A. Yes. "Q. Why i s that? "A. W e l l , i f you've b u i l t t o a c e r t a i n p l a n and t h e n you have t o b a c k t r a c k and t e a r s o m e t h i n g o u t and change i t , o f c o u r s e , t h a t can t a k e l o n g e r . I f y o u ' v e g o t a s e t o f p l a n s and y o u ' r e b u i l d i n g t o them p l a n s and p l a n s and c h a n g e s a r e made p r i o r t o you g e t t i n g t o t h e s t e p and s t a g e s o f t h e c h a n g e , t h e n o t h e r t h a n a few m i n u t e s o f s i t t i n g down and s a y i n g l e t ' s do i t t h i s way i n s t e a d o f t h a t way, t h a t d o e s n ' t make much o f an i n c r e a s e i n y o u r t i m e . O n l y i f y o u ' v e a l r e a d y went p a s t t h a t p o i n t and you have t o go h a c k and t e a r s o m e t h i n g o u t , a change t h a t way c o u l d add t o t h e t i m e . "Q. How do c h a n g e s s u c h your s u b c o n t r a c t o r s ? as that affect lining up "A. W e l l , i f a c e r t a i n s u b c o n t r a c t o r i s s c h e d u l e d t o be t h e r e a c e r t a i n day and a change c a u s e s you t o n o t be r e a d y f o r them t h a t c e r t a i n day, t h e n t h e y have t o r e s c h e d u l e . A l o t o f t i m e s t h e y ' v e got another j o b s c h e d u l e d p a s t y o u r s . So, sometimes t h e y ' l l go t o y o u r n e x t j o b and y o u ' l l g e t bumped t o t h e end o f t h e i r l i s t and t h e n y o u ' l l have t o g e t them when t h e y ' r e a v a i l a b l e more t h a n when y o u ' r e r e a d y f o r them." However, C o f f m a n t e s t i f i e d FHB's s u b c o n t r a c t o r was t h a t the concrete d e f e c t i v e b e c a u s e i t had 16 poured cracks by that 2100524 extended below sloped the surface away f r o m t h e d r a i n s concrete. Coffman further d e f e c t s , a l l the concrete be torn cracks out and that some o f i t s s u r f a c e had been i n s t a l l e d testified that, due i n the to p o u r e d by FHB's s u b c o n t r a c t o r replaced. i n the concrete and b e c a u s e Coffman also testified those had t o that the c o u l d have r e s u l t e d f r o m a f a i l u r e compact t h e s o i l b e f o r e the concrete was poured, which to would be a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Code; however, he d i d not f a i l e d t o compact t h e know whether FHB's subcontractor soil. In a d d i t i o n , Coffman testified t h a t FHB's h a d n o t f r a m e d a b a t h r o o m c o r r e c t l y , w h i c h was the to subcontractor a v i o l a t i o n of I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g Code, and t h a t he redo t h a t framing. He testified that FHB's bathroom and t h a t he h a d t o r e p l a c e testified that FHB's subcontractor i t with had tub i n the t r e a t e d wood. failed to seal windows i n t h e b a t h r o o m c o r r e c t l y and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , coming i n a r o u n d t h e window f r a m e . He had subcontractor h a d f a i l e d t o u s e t r e a t e d wood a r o u n d t h e r e c e s s e d was had testified He the water that he h a d t o remove t h e w i n d o w s , r e d o t h e s e a l i n g , and t h e n p u t t h e windows b a c k i n . 17 2100524 Coffman a l s o t e s t i f i e d was t h a t t h e f r a m i n g f o r a room t h a t b e i n g a d d e d i n a n o t h e r p a r t o f t h e h o u s e h a d t o be down and redone because the supporting "I j o i s t s " w h i c h d e p r i v e d them o f s t r u c t u r a l taken were c u t , integrity. The H a r r i s o n s moved t o s t r i k e FHB's s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . On F e b r u a r y 8, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e H a r r i s o n s ' m o t i o n t o s t r i k e FHB's s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f and g r a n t i n g FHB's summaryjudgment m o t i o n . 1 On M a r c h 4, 2011, the H a r r i s o n s appealed to t h e supreme c o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Standard of Review "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of The r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on FHB's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e G a r y H a r r i s o n ' s and Coffman's a f f i d a v i t s . 1 18 2100524 m a t e r i a l f a c t . " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence" is " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.f v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2001)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. First Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). Analysis A. The fraud The claim Harrisons have not raised an issue regarding the p r o p r i e t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g FHB's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y judgment motion w i t h r e s p e c t t o the H a r r i s o n s ' f r a u d c l a i m have not motion. argued t h a t "'An appeals the trial court court will erred consider i n granting only those p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e d as s u c h , and no m a t t e r w i l l be on appeal Riley, 464 unless So. presented 2d J e f f e r s o n C n t y s . Gas 92 and (Ala. D i s t . , 864 19 argued 1985).'" So. 2d in 317, 319 that issues considered brief. Tucker and v. Ex parte Cullman- ( A l a . 2003) 2100524 (quoting App. B r a x t o n v. 1988)) Stewart, (emphasis 539 omitted). So. 2d 284, 286 Accordingly, we (Ala. Civ. affirm p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e H a r r i s o n s ' the fraud claim. B. The breach-of-contract The Harrisons granting the argue allegation the trial court with erred respect to in their c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s b a s e d on that FHB accordance w i t h the p l a n s Harrisons, that summary-judgment m o t i o n breach-of-contract the claim (2) t h e failed and to perform work specifications provided in by the f a i l e d to perform the (3) t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB work i n a w o r k m a n l i k e manner, and f a i l e d to complete the the (1) work. " ' [ N ] o t e v e r y p a r t i a l f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the terms of a c o n t r a c t by abandon the one party contract ... at F i t z g e r a l d , 222 A l a . 386, 6 R.C.L. p. 926). will entitle once.'" 388 , 133 I n t h e c a s e now the other Birmingham So. 31, 32 before us, News (1931) i n order party to Co. v. (quoting for the H a r r i s o n s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e y had t h e r i g h t t o u n i l a t e r a l l y terminate proving t h e c o n t r a c t on May t h a t FHB had 4, 2007, t h e y b o r e t h e b u r d e n o f committed a breach of the 20 contract that 2100524 was "'of so constitute material and substantial a nature a d e f e n s e t o an a c t i o n b r o u g h t by Harrisons'] refusal to proceed with the as [FHB] would f o r [the contract.'" Id. ( q u o t i n g 3 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s § 1 4 6 7 ) . "Whether o r n o t a g i v e n b r e a c h i s so m a t e r i a l o r e s s e n t i a l may question of f a c t t o be d e t e r m i n e d by be f r e q u e n t l y a the j u r y , yet i f i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t h e q u e s t i o n i s so c l e a r as t o be d e c i d e d o n l y i n one way, i t i s a q u e s t i o n of law f o r the c o u r t . " I d . I n o r d e r f o r FHB's b r e a c h o f t h e c o n t r a c t t o constitute a d e f e n s e t o an a c t i o n b r o u g h t by FHB b a s e d on t h e H a r r i s o n s ' refusal to proceed with the contract, the breach must be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t FHB h a d n o t r e n d e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t . See John D. C a l a m a r i & J o s e p h M. Perillo The ("Substantial Law of Contracts performance is breach. I f a breach i s m a t e r i a l , § the 11.18(b) ( 4 t h ed. antithesis i t follows that of 1998) material substantial p e r f o r m a n c e has n o t b e e n r e n d e r e d . " ) . " S u b s t a n t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f a c o n t r a c t does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e e x a c t p e r f o r m a n c e o f e v e r y d e t a i l b u t p e r f o r m a n c e o f a l l i m p o r t a n t p a r t s . " Mac Pon Co. v. Vinsant Painting & D e c o r a t i n g Co., 1982). 21 423 So. 2d 216, 218 ( A l a . 2100524 The the Harrisons' answer t o testimony regarding Coffman's a f f i d a v i t , the concrete FHB's i n t e r r o g a t o r y number defects and the i n the concrete c o n s t i t u t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that had failed to w o r k m a n l i k e manner. See So. 2d a t 545 perform P o t t e r v. ("'"Substantial in defects in i n Coffman's d e p o s i t i o n testimony FHB contained testimony regarding and t h e f r a m i n g c o n t a i n e d 4, some tending of its F i r s t Real to prove work Estate in a Co., 844 e v i d e n c e " i s "evidence of such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can f a c t s o u g h t t o be r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the p r o v e d . " ' " ) . We conclude t h a t the w h e t h e r t h a t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t FHB breach of terminate be the the that F i t z g e r a l d , 222 by a jury. A l a . a t 388, See 133 the i s a question a t 32 Therefore, of fact we be determined by that News Co. be failed to 22 perform v. the frequently jury the work a a "). c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s b a s e d on FHB to of f a c t to r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o breach-of-contract allegation to question ("Whether o r n o t b r e a c h i s so m a t e r i a l o r e s s e n t i a l may question the Harrisons Birmingham So. of committed a m a t e r i a l entitled contract u n i l a t e r a l l y determined given contract existence of in the the a 2100524 w o r k m a n l i k e manner. I n s o f a r as t h e i r b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m i s b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB with the p l a n s f a i l e d to perform and specifications, the t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e the Harrisons argue that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n because, they testified wiring (1) that of required FHB the in instead say, wall to installed the that Madelyn to the right those Hereford, plumbing left as of pipes a and by wires decorator, and sliding specified pipes their pocket the be electrical plans, torn door which out and r e i n s t a l l e d , and (2) G a r y H a r r i s o n t e s t i f i e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t that did "Mr. Gean directions Robert follow of Madelyn Hereford, Weber, Harrison not is a our our architect mere the " conclusory drawings, interior That statement plans and decorator, testimony that, and of Gary "'cannot c o n s i d e r e d i n r u l i n g upon a s u m m a r y [ - ] j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . ' " v. Crosby, court's 581 order). instance of specifications. FHB's So. failure 2d 842, Hereford's FHB's follow ( A l a . 1991) testimony failure However, to 843 to i n order the 23 (quoting tended follow the f o r t h a t one plans and to be B.M. trial prove plans instance specifications one and of to 2100524 c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l b r e a c h o f t h e c o n t r a c t , i t w o u l d have t o be sufficient to establish that FHB h a d f a i l e d s u b s t a n t i a l performance of the c o n t r a c t . Co. v. Fitzgerald, Calamari & conclude that See B i r m i n g h a m News 222 A l a . a t 388, 133 So. a t 32; a n d Perillo that t o render The Law of Contracts one i n s t a n c e alone § 11.18(b). We i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t FHB f a i l e d t o r e n d e r s u b s t a n t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t . See Mac Pon Co. v . V i n s a n t Painting & Decorating Co. , 423 So. 2d a t 218 ( " S u b s t a n t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f a c o n t r a c t does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e exact performance of every d e t a i l but p e r f o r m a n c e o f a l l i m p o r t a n t p a r t s . " ) ; a n d B i r m i n g h a m News Co. v. F i t z g e r a l d , 222 A l a . a t 388, 133 So. a t 32 ("Whether o r n o t a given b r e a c h i s s o m a t e r i a l o r e s s e n t i a l may be f r e q u e n t l y a question o f f a c t t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e j u r y , y e t i f i n a p a r t i c u l a r case t h e q u e s t i o n in one way, Therefore, i t is a i s s o c l e a r as t o be d e c i d e d question only of law f o r the c o u r t . " ) . we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to the breach-of-contract c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s b a s e d on t h e allegation FHB that failed to follow the plans and specifications. I n s o f a r as t h e i r b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 24 c l a i m i s b a s e d on t h e 2100524 a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB f a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e work, t h e H a r r i s o n s argue that the t r i a l court erred i n granting j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , (1) Gean t h e summary- testified b e f o r e t h e c o n t r a c t was s i g n e d , he h a d e s t i m a t e d take three Harrison to four testified months that, that i t would t o c o m p l e t e t h e work; (2) G a r y t h a t FHB c o u l d have c o m p l e t e d t h e work b y m i d - A p r i l 2007 i f i t h a d p e r f o r m e d t h e work p r o p e r l y ; a n d (3) Hereford testified as f o l l o w s : " [ B y FHB's a t t o r n e y ] Q. I n y o u r j u d g m e n t , w i t h a l l t h e c h a n g e s t h a t were made a n d i t goes up -- i n y o u r n o t e s , up u n t i l A p r i l t h e 1 s t , b e t w e e n A p r i l 1 s t a n d 6 t h . Due t o t h o s e c h a n g e s , t h i s j o b c o u l d n ' t be c o m p l e t e d b y M a r c h o r A p r i l o f 2007; i s t h a t fair? "A. Yes -- no -- w a i t a m i n u t e . I s i t f a i r was n o t c o m p l e t e d b y M a r c h o r A p r i l ? that i t "Q. Due t o t h e c h a n g e s ? "A. I s e e no r e a s o n completed. that i t could n o t have been "Q. Okay. E v e n c h a n g e s t h a t were s t i l l made i n M a r c h and A p r i l , huh? "A. W e l l , l o o k a t t h e c h a n g e s t h a t were made. We c h a n g e d f r o m a j e t t e d t u b t o s p a . T h a t -- I b e l i e v e t h a t i s -- t h e s p a c e was a l r e a d y t h e r e . The f r a m i n g c o u l d have been d o n e . " We three cannot consider t o four months Gean's estimate to perform 25 that i t would the contract take because the 2100524 contract before expressly the signing provided of the that a l l representations contract were merged c o n t r a c t . I n Ex p a r t e P a l m H a r b o r Homes, I n c . , 798 660-61 ( A l a . 2001), the supreme c o u r t into So. 2d explained: "As a general rule, 'when p a r t i e s r e d u c e a c o n t r a c t t o w r i t i n g and i n t e n d t h a t w r i t i n g t o be t h e c o m p l e t e c o n t r a c t , no e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e o f prior or contemporaneous agreements will be admissible t o change, a l t e r , or c o n t r a d i c t the c o n t r a c t u a l w r i t i n g . ' Sherman v. Woerner M a g n o l i a Farms, I n c . , 565 So. 2d 601, 605 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h i s is so, because, ' a l l p r i o r and contemporaneous n e g o t i a t i o n s a r e [deemed t o be] merged' i n t o t h a t w r i t i n g . C r i m s o n I n d u s . , I n c . v. K i r k l a n d , 736 So. 2d 597, 601 ( A l a . 1999) (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . "'When a c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n s ... a m e r g e r c l a u s e , t h e a g r e e m e n t i s deemed t o be " i n t e g r a t e d , " s u c h t h a t e v i d e n c e of p r i o r or contemporaneous agreements s h a l l n o t be a d m i t t e d t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t . ' J o h n s o n E n t e r s . o f J a c k s o n v i l l e , I n c . v. FPL G r o u p , I n c . , 162 F.3d 1290, 1309 (11th C i r . 1998). Merger c l a u s e s thus c r e a t e a presumption t h a t t h e w r i t i n g r e p r e s e n t s an i n t e g r a t e d , t h a t i s , t h e f i n a l and c o m p l e t e , a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . See T a l l m a d g e B r o s . , I n c . v. I r o q u o i s Gas Transmission S y s . , L.P., 252 Conn. 479, 504, 746 A.2d 1277, 1291 n. 15 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . 'In o r d e r t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n and, i n e f f e c t , i n v a l i d a t e the merger c l a u s e , a p a r t y must o f f e r e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e of f r a u d , bad f a i t h , u n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y , n e g l i g e n t o m i s s i o n o r m i s t a k e i n f a c t . ' S m i t h v. C e n t r a l Soya o f A t h e n s , I n c . , 604 F. Supp. 518, 526 (E.D. N.C. 1 9 8 5 ) . See a l s o L a k e M a r t i n / A l a b a m a Power L i c e n s e e A s s ' n , I n c . v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 601 So. 2d 942, 945 ( A l a . 1992) ('When f r a u d i n t h e i n d u c e m e n t has been r u l e d out, ... a l l prior statements and n e g o t i a t i o n s a r e merged i n t o t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t 26 made the 656, 2100524 and ... i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an a m b i g u i t y ... , p a r o l evidence will not be received to explain, contradict, vary, add t o , or s u b t r a c t from the e x p r e s s terms of the w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t . ' ) . Whether a c o n t r a c t i s i n t e g r a t e d i s o r d i n a r i l y a q u e s t i o n of l a w f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e c i d e . Moore v. Pennsylvania C a s t l e E n e r g y C o r p . , 89 F.3d 791, 797 (11th C i r . 1996); A s s o c i a t e d C a t a l o g M e r c h a n d i s e r s , Inc. v. Chagnon, 210 Conn. 734, 740, 557 A.2d 525, 528 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; W a l k e r v. S a r i c k s , 360 Pa. 594, 599, 63 A.2d 9, 11 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; see a l s o H i b b e t t S p o r t i n g Goods v. B i e r n b a u m , 375 So. 2d 431, 435 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . " I n t h e c a s e now an exception estimate. precludes before to the merger Consequently, the have n o t a r g u e d t h a t doctrine merger applies clause us f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e s t i m a t e . H a r b o r Homes, Because completion in to the See of contract the was work See Lemon v. 263, ( A l a . 1992) p e r f o r m e x i s t s , and performance, the neither contract Ex p a r t e nor specified stated that e n t i t l e d to a reasonable contract. law Golf Terrace ("[W]here a a time Palm date the Owners A s s ' n , 611 contractual 2d obligation to no t i m e i s p r e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t r e q u i r e s the obligated party to on b e h a l f o f t h e H a r r i s o n s , i t would 27 take a minimum the So. as an e x p e r t w i t n e s s that of time to perform t i m e . ' " ) . A l t h o u g h C o f f m a n , who deposition for was w i t h i n a 'reasonable his Gean's Inc. the e s s e n c e , FHB 265 us, the H a r r i s o n s perform testified testified of for a year in to 2100524 p e r f o r m t h e work, t h e H a r r i s o n s to establish a genuine whether the Harrisons perform t h e work b e f o r e issue sufficient of material afforded FHB a terminating 2007. I d . ("What i s a r e a s o n a b l e the submitted fact regarding reasonable the contract evidence time to on May 4, t i m e depends on t h e n a t u r e o f a c t t o be done a n d a l l o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s relating to t h a t a c t . T h i s , n e c e s s a r i l y , i s a q u e s t i o n t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y the trier should of f a c t . " ) . M o r e o v e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , i f a j u r y f i n d that the Harrisons a f f o r d e d FHB a r e a s o n a b l e t o c o m p l e t e t h e work, i t w o u l d a l s o be a j u r y q u e s t i o n time whether FHB's f a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e work b y May 4, 2007, c o n s t i t u t e d a material Harrisons News breach of the contract t o terminate would the contract u n i l a t e r a l l y . Co. v. F i t z g e r a l d , 222 A l a . Therefore, that entitle the Birmingham a t 388, 133 So. a t 32. we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e breach-of-contract c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB f a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e work. The with Harrisons respect have n o t c h a l l e n g e d to the breach-of-contract c l a i m i s b a s e d on a n y o t h e r fails t h e summary judgment c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t a l l e g a t i o n s . "When an a p p e l l a n t t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , 28 that issue i s waived." 2100524 B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we affirm t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h contract claim allegation contract insofar as respect that to the breach-of- claim is other than the a l l e g a t i o n s that by failing to perform manner and by f a i l i n g C. The n e g l i g e n c e t h e work based on any FHB b r e a c h e d t h e in a workmanlike t o c o m p l e t e t h e work. claim The H a r r i s o n s challenge t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s b a s e d on t h e allegations that FHB failed to supervise t h e work i n a p r o p e r manner, f a i l e d workmanlike accordance evidence with that indicating workmanlike claim also manner, and the we t h e FHB manner failed plans held and to perform the specifications. had not p e r f o r m e d constitutes of substantial work The t h a t e v i d e n c e , we r e v e r s e same some o f i t s work i n a the breach-of-contract s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g purposes of the negligence claim. in evidence FHB f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m some o f i t s work i n a w o r k m a n l i k e for of t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a constituted f o r purposes the performance Accordingly, that manner based on t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n 29 2100524 t h a t FHB f a i l e d manner. t o p e r f o r m some o f i t s work i n a w o r k m a n l i k e See P o t t e r v. F i r s t Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d a t 545. Moreover, pipes the Hereford's and w i r e s to the l e f t failed by t h e p l a n s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence FHB installed i t was tending FHB's f a i l u r e I d . For purposes necessary to prove that of the that FHB the plans and breach-of-contract the Harrisons establish that t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p l a n s specifications contract, the and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h specifications. claim, that of the pocket door i n s t e a d of t o r i g h t o f i t as r e q u i r e d constitutes and testimony and we constituted are a f f i r m i n g a material the breach summary of judgment the with r e s p e c t t o t h e b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d on the a l l e g a t i o n that accordance with FHB the plans failed to perform t h e work i n and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s b e c a u s e we h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s i n g l e i n s t a n c e o f FHB's f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m the work i n accordance a t t e s t e d t o by H e r e f o r d with the plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s d i d not e s t a b l i s h t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l breach of the contract. However, the negligence are not r e q u i r e d t o prove claim, the Harrisons 30 f o r purposes of 2100524 t h a t FHB's f a i l u r e plans t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l b r e a c h o f t h e contract. Accordingly, installed instead the pipes b a s e d on H e r e f o r d ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t and w i r e s to the l e f t FHB of the pocket door o f t o t h e r i g h t o f i t as r e q u i r e d by t h e p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect to insofar on the negligence claim a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB f a i l e d with the plans With Harrison i t i s based t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e to the allegation that FHB failed to t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work i n a p r o p e r manner, G a r y testified in his affidavit t h a t Gean f a i l e d t o t h e j o b s i t e on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , f a i l e d t o o r d e r t o come materials i n a t i m e l y manner, a n d f a i l e d t o s c h e d u l e and c o o r d i n a t e work o f s u b c o n t r a c t o r s Harrison described coordinate Harrison the and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . respect supervise as i n a p r o p e r manner. two examples t h e work o f s u b c o n t r a c t o r s of the In a d d i t i o n , Gary Gean's failure to i n a p r o p e r manner. G a r y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Gean h a d o r d e r e d m a t e r i a l s that were n o t s u i t a b l e f o r t h e work, w h i c h h a d t o be r e p l a c e d . That t e s t i m o n y c o n s t i t u t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t FHB had not supervised the performance 31 o f t h e work i n a p r o p e r 2100524 manner. 545. to See P o t t e r Accordingly, the v. F i r s t Real Estate claim insofar as a l l e g a t i o n t h a t FHB f a i l e d t o s u p e r v i s e work i n a p r o p e r have n o t c h a l l e n g e d to the negligence b a s e d on any o t h e r the t h e summary judgment c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t c l a i m i s fails to t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . " B o s h e l l v. 418 So. 2d a t 92. A c c o r d i n g l y , judgment w i t h r e s p e c t to the negligence c l a i m i s b a s e d on any a l l e g a t i o n s o t h e r failed on the performance of the a l l e g a t i o n s . "When an a p p e l l a n t a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t FHB f a i l e d i t i s based respect manner. The H a r r i s o n s Keith, 844 So. 2d a t we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h negligence with respect Co., we a f f i r m t h e summary c l a i m i n s o f a r as t h a t than the a l l e g a t i o n s t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a w o r k m a n l i k e manner, t o p e r f o r m t h e work i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and f a i l e d t o s u p e r v i s e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work i n a p r o p e r manner. D. The n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n The H a r r i s o n s granting the claim f i r s t argue t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t summary-judgment motion with erred i n respect to the n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n c l a i m b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , FHB's n a r r a t i v e statement of undisputed fact 32 "fails to include a factual 2100524 statement pertaining to the issue employment, s u p e r v i s i o n , and/ K y l e Gean." H a r r i s o n ' s t h a t i t was of [FHB's] negligent or r e t e n t i o n of the s e r v i c e s b r i e f , a t p. 39. However, FHB asserted e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o negligent-supervision c l a i m on the ground t h a t the was "When t h e b a s i s o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n i s a f a i l u r e o f t h e nonmovant's e v i d e n c e , t h e movant's b u r d e n is the Harrisons had n o t p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Gean incompetent. of l i m i t e d to informing the court ... of the b a s i s of i t s motion -- t h a t i s , t h e m o v i n g p a r t y must i n d i c a t e where t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y ' s c a s e s u f f e r s an e v i d e n t i a r y f a i l u r e . " R e c t o r v. Houses, have Inc., cited no 820 So. legal 2d 75, 80 authority (Ala. 2001). standing for The the Better Harrisons proposition t h a t , when t h e b a s i s o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n i s a failure o f t h e nonmovant's e v i d e n c e , t h e movant must i n c l u d e i n h i s o r her narrative statement statement regarding the of undisputed failure of t h a t facts a factual evidence. "Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., requires that a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f c o n t a i n ' c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' ... [ I ] t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 28(a)(10) r e q u i r i n g c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of the arguments p r e s e n t e d p r o v i d e s this Court w i t h a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g those arguments. 33 2100524 Ex p a r t e Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2001)." S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 822 (Ala. 2005). Because authority the Harrisons supporting their negligent-supervision have n o t c i t e d first claim, we argument decline any legal regarding to the consider that argument. I d . The H a r r i s o n s granting also argue that t h e summary-judgment the t r i a l their n e g l i g e n t - s u p e r v i s i o n c l a i m because, they say, the t r i a l court had never i t evidence indicating with that respect erred i n to before motion court Gean had supervised a j o b as l a r g e as t h e w o r k t o be p e r f o r m e d on t h e Harrisons' house, the job s i t e voiced despite no that t o check concerns on about the Harrisons' to supervise the p r i n c i p a l s o f FHB the performance the q u a l i t y complaining s e l d o m came t o o f t h e work o f t h e work t o them, t h a t Gean However, t h e H a r r i s o n s failed we affirm manner. have n o t s u p p o r t e d t h i s argument w i t h any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y . T h e r e f o r e , the Gean t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work i n a p r o p e r manner, and t h a t t h e work was n o t p e r f o r m e d i n a w o r k m a n l i k e Accordingly, to and we d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h negligent-supervision claim. 34 i t .Id. respect to 2100524 Conclusion I n summary, we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d on t h e allegations that workmanlike manner contract within a FHB failed to perform that FHB failed and reasonable time; we the to work in complete reverse a the t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t FHB f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m t h e work in work a workmanlike manner, accordance w i t h the plans failed to perform and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , the and f a i l e d t o s u p e r v i s e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e work i n a p r o p e r a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l and we remand the cause manner; f o r f u r t h e r proceedings AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND P . J . , and P i t t m a n Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s consistent REMANDED. and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . i n the r e s u l t , without 35 we court i n a l l other respects; with this opinion. Thompson, in writing.

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.