James B. Gunther, Jr. and Jane Lee Gunther v. Carpet Systems of Huntsville, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/04/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120511 James B. Gunther, J r . , and Jane Lee Gunther v. Carpet Systems o f H u n t s v i l l e , Inc. Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-689) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On May 4, 2009, ("Carpet S y s t e m s " ) , trial court") interest, Carpet filed a complaint Systems of Huntsville, Inc. i n t h e M a d i s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the seeking t o recover c o s t s , a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e $40,650 plus f r o m James B. G u n t h e r , 2120511 Jr., J a n e Lee G u n t h e r ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y "the Gunthers"), complaint and alleges Antioch that Homes, LLC Carpet Systems s u b c o n t r a c t o r of A n t i o c h i n A n t i o c h ' s f o r the Gunthers. On j u d g m e n t on C a r p e t February 1, was 2012, The employed as a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a house The G u n t h e r s a n s w e r e d and d e n i e d December 14, court scheduled ("Antioch"). as liability. t h e G u n t h e r s moved f o r a summary S y s t e m s ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. The trial a h e a r i n g on t h a t summary-judgment m o t i o n f o r 2013. On January 25, 2013, Carpet Systems filed an o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e G u n t h e r s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n , and i t filed i t s own motion G u n t h e r s and A n t i o c h . motion for The a summary to defend this against Gunthers opposed Carpet f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . attempt judgment Antioch action, and d i d not i t is not the Systems's respond a or party on appeal. On F e b r u a r y judgment in defendants. Carpet 19, favor 2013, of the t r i a l Carpet court entered Systems against I n i t s summary j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l Systems $40,650 plus costs. appealed. 2 The a summary a l l three c o u r t awarded Gunthers timely 2120511 The standard judgment i s w e l l by which this court reviews a summary settled: "'"To grant ... a [summary-judgment] m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t c r e a t e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h o s e two c o n d i t i o n s a r e s a t i s f i e d , the b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r e s e n t ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . B a s s v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 ( d ) [ , ] A l a . Code 1975. E v i d e n c e i s ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i f i t is of 'such weight and quality that f a i r - m i n d e d 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 . ' West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "'"In our review of a summary j u d g m e n t , we a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e L u m p k i n , 702 So. 2d 462, 465 ( A l a . 1997). Our review i s s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t we must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1990) ."' " P a y t o n v. M o n s a n t o Co., 801 So. 2d 829, 832-33 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 742 So. 2d 182, 184 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . " 3 2120511 Maciasz (Ala. v. Fireman's Fund I n s . Co., 988 So. 2d 991, 994-95 whether Carpet 2008). The dispute in this action pertains to S y s t e m s p r o p e r l y c o m p l i e d w i t h § 35-11-210, A l a . Code 1975, asserting against pertinent i t s claim the for Gunthers. 1 a "full Section p r i c e " materialman's 35-22-210 provides, in lien in part: " [ I ] f [ t h e m a t e r i a l m a n ] s h a l l n o t i f y t h e owner o r h i s or her agent i n w r i t i n g t h a t c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d m a t e r i a l w i l l be f u r n i s h e d by him o r h e r t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r use i n t h e b u i l d i n g or improvements on the land of the owner or p r o p r i e t o r at c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d p r i c e s , u n l e s s the owner o r p r o p r i e t o r o r h i s o r h e r a g e n t o b j e c t s t h e r e t o , t h e f u r n i s h e r o f t h e m a t e r i a l s h a l l have a l i e n f o r t h e f u l l p r i c e t h e r e o f as s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e t o t h e owner o r p r o p r i e t o r w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e amount o f t h e c l a i m f o r t h e m a t e r i a l so f u r n i s h e d e x c e e d s t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e due t h e c o n t r a c t o r , u n l e s s on t h e n o t i c e h e r e i n p r o v i d e d f o r b e i n g g i v e n , t h e owner o r p r o p r i e t o r o r h i s o r her agent s h a l l n o t i f y the f u r n i s h e r i n w r i t i n g b e f o r e t h e m a t e r i a l i s u s e d , t h a t he o r she w i l l n o t be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p r i c e t h e r e o f . " U n d e r § 35-11-210, a c o n t r a c t o r may a l s o a s s e r t a c l a i m f o r an " u n p a i d b a l a n c e " l i e n , i . e . , one " f o r t h e amount o f t h e unpaid balance due to the contractor from the purchaser/owner." B u c k n e r v. A l p h a Lumber & S u p p l y Co., 628 So. 2d 450, 452 ( A l a . 1993) . I t i s undisputed that the Gunthers paid the full amount due to Antioch, their c o n t r a c t o r , and, t h e r e f o r e , C a r p e t Systems has n o t s o u g h t an unpaid-balance l i e n . 1 4 2120511 Our supreme c o u r t has explained that " [ t ] o e s t a b l i s h the r i g h t to a f u l l - p r i c e l i e n , the s u p p l i e r must e i t h e r (1) have an e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y ' s owner o r t h e owner's a g e n t t o s u p p l y t h e m a t e r i a l s o r l a b o r , o r (2) have g i v e n n o t i c e t o t h e owner i n w r i t i n g o f t h e c o s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s o r l a b o r t o be s u p p l i e d b e f o r e beginning work o r d e l i v e r i n g m a t e r i a l s and t h e owner must n o t have r e s p o n d e d i n w r i t i n g t h a t t h e owner w i l l n o t be l i a b l e f o r payment." Saunders 2006). contract v. Lawson, In t h i s 982 So. 2d 1091, 1093 case, C a r p e t Systems d i d not f o r the claim for a lien. materials Therefore, and labor (Ala. Civ. have an C a r p e t S y s t e m s has v. Lawson, i . e . , a n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y The i t s r i g h t to c l a i m a and proceeded to of the materialman's c l a i m t o a i n Saunders owners o f i t s materialman's labor i t provides o f f e r p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e homeowner by requiring timely and to notice lien: "The purpose of the statute creating a m a t e r i a l m a n ' s l i e n i s t o p r o t e c t one who supplies l a b o r o r m a t e r i a l s f o r any b u i l d i n g o r i m p r o v e m e n t on l a n d when he d o e s so a t t h e r e q u e s t o f the contractor rather than at the request of the landowner. A b e l l - H o w e Co. v. I n d u s t r i a l Dev. Bd., 392 So. 2d 221, 224 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1980) . The statute allows a s u p p l i e r to e s t a b l i s h a l i e n i n 5 a lien. p u r p o s e o f § 35-11-210 i s t o s e c u r e t h e c l a i m f o r payment f o r m a t e r i a l s express f o r which i t asserts a s s e r t i t s c l a i m under the second o p t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t e n t to reserve App. 2120511 o r d e r t o g u a r a n t e e payment. Id. However, t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n of the materialman's l i e n s t a t u t e s was i n c l u d e d f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e owner. I d . ( c i t i n g C o v i n g t o n Co. Bank v. R . J . A l l e n & A s s o c . , 462 F. Supp. 413 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ) . " ' [ T h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n was] d e s i g n e d t o i n f o r m t h e owner t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t i n t e n d s t o p l a c e an e n c u m b r a n c e on t h e owner's l a n d ; t h e owner t h e n has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t between h i m s e l f , the c o n t r a c t o r and t h e s u p p l i e r p r i o r t o any e n c u m b r a n c i n g . H a r p e r v. J & C T r u c k i n g & E x c a v a t i n g Co., 374 So. 2d 886 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , w r i t q u a s h e d , 374 So. 2d 893 (Ala. 1979).' "392 So. 2d a t 224." D a v i s v. G o b b l e - F i t e Lumber Co., 592 So. 2d 202, 205 ( A l a . 1991). Our with § courts 35-11-210 materialman's supra, have h e l d , is claim. however, required In Davis the materialman provided in v. that strict compliance order to protect the Gobble-Fite Lumber Co., t h e owner n o t i c e o f i t s i n t e n t t o a s s e r t a f u l l - p r i c e l i e n on t h e day f o l l o w i n g t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e m a t e r i a l s t o be p r o v i d e d trial court entered materialman a l i e n . a to the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e . summary judgment Our supreme c o u r t t h a t b e c a u s e t h e n o t i c e was p r o v i d e d awarding reversed, The the concluding t o t h e homeowners after the m a t e r i a l s a t i s s u e had been d e l i v e r e d , t h e m a t e r i a l m a n had 6 2120511 failed court t o comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of § 35-11-210. The explained: "The t e x t o f § 35-11-210 c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t i n order to p r o c u r e a f u l l - p r i c e l i e n , the m a t e r i a l m a n must g i v e n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o c l a i m a l i e n t o t h e owner b e f o r e any material i s furnished. The materialman's l i e n s t a t u t e i s i n d e r o g a t i o n of the common l a w . Therefore, enforcement of a lien depends upon s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t e ' s substantive requirements." D a v i s v. G o b b l e - F i t e Saunders v. Lumber Co., Lawson, 982 So. 592 2d at So. 2d a t 206. 1094 See (holding also that the m a t e r i a l m a n f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e , i n w r i t i n g , o f an i n t e n t to claim a therefore, lien the before furnishing supplies m a t e r i a l m a n was not entitled and labor, to a and, full-price l i e n under § 35-11-210). The p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e applicable to their C a r p e t S y s t e m s was for a full-price dispute. t h a t the Rather, foregoing they i s the dispute law whether e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t on i t s c l a i m l i e n p u r s u a n t t o § 35-11-210 and w h e t h e r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have e n t e r e d a summary judgment in to issues, Carpet favor of the Systems Gunthers. and the With Gunthers f o l l o w i n g evidence i n support of t h e i r 7 regard presented those the respective positions. 2120511 The G u n t h e r s c o n t r a c t e d w i t h A n t i o c h t o c o n s t r u c t a h o u s e and Antioch referred subcontractor, for undisputed their the t h a t the due under included the the flooring to Carpet for the Gunthers p a i d A n t i o c h construction contract amounts subcontractors Gunthers Antioch for their was work. S y s t e m s f o r i t s m a t e r i a l s and house. the supposed labor. 2 In its submissions the Gunthers, and a f f i d a v i t s . for Carpet the trial which pay to pay Gunthers the Carpet obtained of the house on 2009. support among o t h e r amount to a c e r t i f i c a t e of occupancy f o r the completion November 25, is entire d i d not The It a Antioch, with Antioch Systems, of i t s motion Carpet by Systems p r e s e n t e d Carpet documentary Systems s u b m i t t e d t h i n g s , the Systems. in t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d opposing f o r a summary j u d g m e n t and The affidavit to the t r i a l of C h r i s B e y l , a G u n t h e r s a r g u e , as court, that Beyl's R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., affidavit evidence was they not court, salesman did before proper under because, they m a i n t a i n , i t i s not A c c o r d i n g t o a l l e g a t i o n s by t h e G u n t h e r s i n t h e i r m o t i o n s filed i n the trial c o u r t , a number o f subcontractors, i n c l u d i n g C a r p e t S y s t e m s , a s s e r t e d c l a i m s a g a i n s t them, b u t t h e o t h e r s u b c o n t r a c t o r s ' c l a i m s were d i s m i s s e d . 2 8 2120511 based on B e y l ' s specifically personal knowledge. Although Beyl state that the facts i n the a f f i d a v i t d i dnot are based upon h i s p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e , i n h i s a f f i d a v i t B e y l s t a t e s t h a t he t o o k c e r t a i n a c t i o n s a n d was p r e s e n t when o t h e r p e o p l e t o o k certain actions. affidavit A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t much o f B e y l ' s was b a s e d on h i s p e r s o n a l w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 56(e) . Also, with one exception, knowledge were n o t p r o p e r l y complies 3 we a r g u m e n t s t h a t t h e documents s u b m i t t e d affidavit and reject the Gunthers' i n support of Beyl's authenticated. This c o u r t has explained: "With r e s p e c t t o t h e requirement i n Rule 56(e) t h a t '[s]worn ... c o p i e s o f a l l p a p e r s o r p a r t s thereof r e f e r r e d t o i n an a f f i d a v i t shall be a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o o r s e r v e d t h e r e w i t h , ' o u r supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d : "'"... T h i s means t h a t i f w r i t t e n documents are r e l i e d upon t h e y a c t u a l l y must be exhibited; affidavits that purport to describe a document's s u b s t a n c e o r an interpretation of i t s contents are insufficient...." Wright & Miller, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l § 2722. ' The p o r t i o n o f B e y l ' s a f f i d a v i t n o t b a s e d on h i s p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e i s d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n as p a r t o f t h e discussion p e r t a i n i n g t o the a u t h e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n documents s u b m i t t e d b y C a r p e t S y s t e m s . 3 9 2120511 " O l i v e r v. B r o c k , 342 So. 2d 1, 4-5 (Ala. 1976) (emphasis added). See a l s o W e l c h v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Hosp. Bd., 502 So. 2d 340, 343 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; O s b o r n v. J o h n s , 468 So. 2d 103, 108 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . As t h e f o r e g o i n g d e c i s i o n s i m p l y , a document i s deemed t o be 'sworn' i f i t i s a u t h e n t i c a t e d by t h e a f f i a n t and a t t a c h e d as an e x h i b i t t o t h e a f f i d a v i t . " Coleman v. BAC 2012) Servicing, 104 So. 3d 195, 202 (Ala. Civ. App. ( f i n a l emphasis added). In h i s a f f i d a v i t s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t of C a r p e t a r g u m e n t s , B e y l r e f e r e n c e d d o c u m e n t s he had Systems's himself prepared o r had w i t n e s s e d b e i n g c o m p l e t e d by J a n e G u n t h e r ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Gunther"). Beyl's Those documents affidavit. authenticate those were submitted Therefore, Beyl's documents of in support of affidavit served to which he had personal knowledge. However, Carpet Beyl's Systems knowledge. work reference in orders not is his affidavit based on to his Beyl states i n h i s a f f i d a v i t that other seven personal employees c o m p l e t e d t h o s e work o r d e r s . B e y l d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t he had personal work o r d e r s , was made to knowledge of authenticate Accordingly, we those the conclude work orders as and 10 effort business t h a t t h e work o r d e r s B e y l ' s a f f i d a v i t were i n a d m i s s i b l e . no records. referenced in 2120511 In that evidence, early part Beyl September of his affidavit t e s t i f i e d that 2009 and t h a t flooring materials. he with admissible the Gunthers i n the Gunthers s e l e c t e d various B e y l s t a t e d t h a t , t h e r e a f t e r , he went t o t h e h o u s e t o o b t a i n measurements flooring materials met containing f o r the i n s t a l l a t i o n of the s e l e c t e d by t h e G u n t h e r s . Beyl t e s t i f i e d t h a t on September 22, 2009, he met w i t h G u n t h e r and t h a t she c o m p l e t e d C a r p e t S y s t e m s ' s s t a n d a r d " N o t i f i c a t i o n t o Owner o f F u r n i s h i n g L a b o r a n d / o r M a t e r i a l s " ( h e r e i n a f t e r " t h e September 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n " ) . of Beyl a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , "to the best [ h i s ] r e c o l l e c t i o n , " Gunther had f i l l e d i n that p a r t of the September 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n f o r m t h a t r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h e cost of the m a t e r i a l s S y s t e m s was $40,650. and The labor t o be September 22, supplied 2009, by Carpet notification f o r m was s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f B e y l ' s a f f i d a v i t ; t h e p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h a t n o t i f i c a t i o n c o m p l i e d w i t h § 35-11-210. B e y l a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t on S e p t e m b e r 23, 2009, he p r e p a r e d a j o b c o n t r a c t detailing the t o t a l amount due f o r s u p p l y i n g m a t e r i a l s and l a b o r f o r " A n t i o c h ' s j o b " a t t h e G u n t h e r s ' h o u s e ; t h a t document was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l court. 11 2120511 C a r p e t Systems a l s o s u b m i t t e d statement Court of i t s l i e n ("the p r o b a t e that court") i n t o evidence the v e r i f i e d i t filed i n the Madison on November document, C a r p e t S y s t e m s r e p r e s e n t e d 19, 2009. that Probate In that the materials f o r t h e p r o j e c t h a d b e e n s u p p l i e d "on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 15, 2009." In a d d i t i o n , Carpet sworn which Systems submitted " A f f i d a v i t / P r o o f of Claim," i t s president, materials that were Carter the subject to the t r i a l d a t e d March Haley, court a 23, 2010, i n testified of the claimed that lien the "were d e l i v e r e d on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 15, 2009." In among support other admitted that of t h e i r things, position, the a f f i d a v i t she f i l l e d of submitted, Gunther. Gunther o u t some o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n she the Gunthers on t h e form, b u t she d i s p u t e d h a d w r i t t e n t h e amount "$40,650" on t h a t form. that Rather, a c c o r d i n g t o G u n t h e r , " t h e amount on t h e [September 22, 2009,] notification was l e f t blank." The G u n t h e r s d i d not submit i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e c o p y o f t h e September 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n t h a t they contended they r e c e i v e d from Carpet Gunther t e s t i f i e d , among o t h e r things, Systems. that she was a t t h e h o u s e on a d a i l y b a s i s i n e a r l y t o m i d - S e p t e m b e r 2009 a n d 12 2120511 t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , employees o f C a r p e t Systems had p r e p a r e d the house f o r the installation installing hardwood floors of flooring i n the house. and had Gunther begun stated i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t much o f t h e h a r d w o o d f l o o r i n g was i n p l a c e at the time she was given the September 22, 2009, notification. Gunther also presented evidence indicating that on September 9, 2009, t h e G u n t h e r s p u r c h a s e d $3,110 i n m a t e r i a l s from Carpet credit Systems card. purchased and Gunther on t h a t paid f o r those d i d not date. materials s p e c i f y what Rather, Gunther using materials testified a were that on September 9, 2009, B e y l a s s u r e d h e r t h a t h a r d w o o d f l o o r i n g h a d been ordered "assisted Gunther and her in further demonstrates that that the stated another completion that Carpet of exhibit the Gunthers the C p a i d Carpet Systems tile to and m a t e r i a l s " on September 9, 2009. Gunther's affidavit her credit-card purchase." her Systems floor t i l e is employee affidavit " f o r the Exhibit C to statement, which i n d i c a t e s a c h a r g e f o r $3,110 b u t does n o t i d e n t i f y what i t e m s were purchased. 13 2120511 On a p p e a l , t h e G u n t h e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l in entering a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor court of Carpet erred Systems. Under § 35-11-210, D a v i s v. G o b b l e - F i t e Lumber Co., s u p r a , and Saunders v. Lawson, supra, i n order t o make a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g s u f f i c i e n t t o e n t i t l e i t t o a summary j u d g m e n t i n i t s favor, Carpet S y s t e m s was required, among o t h e r present evidence i n d i c a t i n g that i t provided September were 22, 2009, furnished. court The demonstrates measured the notification admissible that house Beyl i n early before with the September 2009 and H a l e y ' s March 23, 2010, both of which s t a t e d that the m a t e r i a l s for a materialman's l i e n O c t o b e r 15, 2009. had been the and trial and that he C a r p e t Systems filed sworn subject furnished labor Gunthers presented i t s statement of a materialman's l i e n court or before p r e p a r e d a j o b c o n t r a c t on September 23, 2009. probate to the Gunthers the materials evidence met things, i n the statement, to the claim on or about Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t C a r p e t S y s t e m s met i t s p r i m a f a c i e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g , p u r s u a n t t o § 35-11¬ 210, t h a t i t n o t i f i e d the Gunthers of i t s c l a i m f o r a full- p r i c e l i e n on September 22, 2009, w e l l b e f o r e i t f u r n i s h e d t h e m a t e r i a l s on O c t o b e r 15, 2009. 14 2120511 Also, notify § 35-11-210 the homeowner requires of the that right in to order to assert a properly lien, the m a t e r i a l m a n must n o t i f y t h e homeowner o f t h e s p e c i f i c p r i c e o f the material or labor to be provided. In this t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o the b e s t of h i s knowledge or Gunther completed the which included materials support and of September the figure labor Beyl's 22, S e p t e m b e r 22, to as provided the by Carpet notification which, G u n t h e r s were p r o p e r l y that Carpet Systems form, of the Systems. In submitted Systems Systems's p o s s i b l e c l a i m f o r a f u l l - p r i c e showing recollection, amount Carpet form, that that evidence, taken together, Beyl 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n $40,650 affidavit, 2009, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the be case, the on its n o t i f i e d of lien. We face, Carpet conclude c o n s t i t u t e d a prima complied with § facie 35-11-210 by p r o v i d i n g t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e G u n t h e r s o f i t s r i g h t t o c l a i m a f u l l - p r i c e m a t e r i a l m a n ' s l i e n and the m a t e r i a l s In and opposition l a b o r were f u r n i s h e d a f t e r t h a t to that evidence, the Gunthers date. presented e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t C a r p e t S y s t e m s ' s September 22, notification did not t e s t i f i e d t h a t when she comply was with provided 15 § the 35-11-210. that 2009, Gunther S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, 2120511 n o t i f i c a t i o n , t h e p o r t i o n o f t h a t f o r m i d e n t i f y i n g t h e amount o f t h e c l a i m was l e f t b l a n k , a n d s h e s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t fill i n that blank. the September provided The G u n t h e r s d i d n o t s u b m i t i n t o 22, 2009, t o Gunther. testimony created notification form they claim was R e g a r d l e s s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t G u n t h e r ' s a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact regarding w h e t h e r t h e September 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n p r o p e r l y with evidence complied § 35-5-210. Also, the Gunthers presented Systems's p r i m a f a c i e were f u r n i s h e d after 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n . already provided flooring" evidence showing t h a t disputing the materials the Gunthers r e c e i v e d Carpet and l a b o r t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, Gunther t e s t i f i e d t h a t C a r p e t Systems had labor was i n p l a c e 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n . and that "much when she r e c e i v e d of the hardwood t h e September 22, However, G u n t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e G u n t h e r s h a d made a s e p a r a t e p u r c h a s e o f m a t e r i a l s f r o m C a r p e t S y s t e m s on September 9, 2009, a n d t h a t she h a d c o m m u n i c a t e d on that date installation with a Carpet and o r d e r i n g Systems o f hardwood employee flooring. about 4 the In her The G u n t h e r s a r g u e i n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e y p r e s e n t e d evidence of h a v i n g p a i d f o r t h e f l o o r i n g from Carpet S y s t e m s i n June 2009, w e l l b e f o r e t h e September 22, 2009, 4 16 2120511 affidavit, labor Gunther d i d n o t e x p l a i n whether t h e m a t e r i a l s and she s t a t e d had been p r o v i d e d September 22, 2009, $40,650 o r d e r lien notification those materials pursuant t o the separate, the Gunthers Systems. 5 However, conclude that materials were she r e c e i v e d t h e part of the larger, f o r w h i c h C a r p e t Systems sought i t s f u l l - p r i c e or whether which before there and l a b o r September purchased out of exists and l a b o r directly abundance a factual f o r the order provided 9, 2009, t r a n s a c t i o n i n items an were of question f o r which from Carpet caution, we as t o w h e t h e r Carpet Systems notification. I n a s s e r t i n g t h a t argument, t h e Gunthers c i t e G u n t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t , i n June 2009, t h e G u n t h e r s made a l a r g e payment t o A n t i o c h a n d t h a t A n t i o c h h a d d e s i g n a t e d t h a t payment as c o v e r i n g , among o t h e r things, the costs of flooring. The G u n t h e r s have c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a payment t o a g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t t h a t t h e general c o n t r a c t o r purports i s t o cover the cost of a c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l m a n ' s l a b o r a n d m a t e r i a l s e q u a t e s t o a payment t o t h a t m a t e r i a l m a n f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f § 35-11-210. A c c o r d i n g l y , we d e c l i n e t o a t t r i b u t e t h e payment t h e G u n t h e r s made t o t h e i r c o n t r a c t o r as h a v i n g b e e n made t o C a r p e t S y s t e m s . I n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n on t h e c o m p e t i n g summaryjudgment m o t i o n s , t h e Gunthers d i d n o t p r e s e n t any 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 i t e m s p u r c h a s e d s e p a r a t e l y b y them on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2009, were p a r t o f t h e o r d e r o r p u r c h a s e f o r w h i c h C a r p e t Systems a s s e r t s i t s c l a i m o f a $40,650 l i e n . The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y C a r p e t S y s t e m s c o n t a i n s no r e f e r e n c e t o that previous transaction. 5 17 2120511 claims a provided lien been the Gunthers the Given the in had foregoing, furnished before S e p t e m b e r 22, we Carpet 2009, h o l d t h a t the notification. trial court e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C a r p e t Although the trial court did not Systems 6 erred Systems. expressly deny the G u n t h e r s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h a t r u l i n g i s i m p l i c i t i n its February Systems. The 19, 2013, Gunthers summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r have argued on appeal of Carpet that their e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s was before t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e September 22, sufficient to create summary j u d g m e n t a prima in their facie favor. 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n case See provided f o r the Lloyd entry Noland was of a Found., T h e G u n t h e r s a l s o a r g u e t h a t l a b o r was p r o v i d e d before t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n b e c a u s e B e y l w o r k e d t o measure t h e house f o r t h e f l o o r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009. We n e e d n o t r e a c h C a r p e t S y s t e m s ' s argument t h a t t h a t l a b o r d i d n o t b e n e f i t t h e G u n t h e r s ' house o r r e a l t y . The G u n t h e r s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t C a r p e t Systems i n c l u d e d the c o s t of the l a b o r needed t o p r o v i d e an e s t i m a t e o f t h e p r o j e c t c o s t o r t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l s needed i n i t s c l a i m . R a t h e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , a s s u m i n g t h a t work o r l a b o r u n d e r t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o s t o f t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t o r t h e amount o f m a t e r i a l s n e e d e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e r e q u e s t e d p r o j e c t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e amount o f t h e c l a i m e d l i e n , s u c h work o r l a b o r does n o t o p e r a t e t o d e f e a t a c l a i m u n d e r § 35-11-210. To h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d p r e v e n t a materialman from having the a b i l i t y t o a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s a p r o j e c t o r p r o v i d e an e s t i m a t e o f i t s c h a r g e s i n p r o v i d i n g goods and s e r v i c e s . 6 18 2120511 Inc. 263 v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d ( A l a . 2002) disposing [an a p p e l l a t e the trial i n the case final judgment (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a 4(a)(1)."). e n t i t l e s the [ a p p e l l a n t ] , f o r purposes court's] court's [the a p p e l l a n t ' s ] P. 837 So. 2d 253, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] summary j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i n g o f fewer than a l l claims) of Auth., ("[An] a p p e a l f r o m a p r e t r i a l of a l l claims Rule 54(b)[, Healthcare r e v i e w , t o r a i s e i s s u e s b a s e d upon adverse r u l i n g s , i n c l u d i n g the d e n i a l of summary-judgment m o t i o n . As already explained See A l a . R. App. i n this G u n t h e r s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e a t t e m p t i n g opinion, the to d i s t i n g u i s h the m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e September 9, 2009, p u r c h a s e from those subject subsequent l i e n . the materials t o t h e September 22, 2009, notice and In t h e absence o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t and l a b o r provided relate s o l e l y to that f o r w h i c h C a r p e t S y s t e m s i s a s s e r t i n g i t s c l a i m u n d e r § 35-11-210, we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e G u n t h e r s p r e s e n t e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . However, as a l r e a d y s t a t e d i n our d i s c u s s i o n of the Gunthers' argument t h a t summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C a r p e t S y s t e m s was inappropriate on t h i s issue, p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s we on t h i s 19 conclude issue that was the evidence sufficiently in 2120511 dispute to render summary judgment inappropriate in this action. We must a l s o r e j e c t t h e G u n t h e r s ' argument t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n denying t h e i r issue whether t h e September summary-judgment motion 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n on t h e complied w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 35-11-210. The G u n t h e r s c l a i m Gunther's that 2009, testimony i n her a f f i d a v i t notification d i d not s e t f o r t h S y s t e m s ' s c l a i m was support of t h e i r Gunther notification of what t h e amount o f motion. she b e l i e v e d s t a t e d , the Gunthers t h e September t h e September 22, Carpet s u f f i c i e n t t o make a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e i n summary-judgment described that However, although t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, f a i l e d t o submit a v e r s i o n 22, 2009, n o t i f i c a t i o n form substantiating t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n i n Gunther's affidavit. Servicing, ( " ' " [ I ] f w r i t t e n documents a r e 104 So. 3d a t 202 See Coleman v. r e l i e d upon t h e y a c t u a l l y must be e x h i b i t e d ; a f f i d a v i t s purport to interpretation describe of its (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . presented a prima a document's contents are substance or insufficient BAC that an "'" Thus, we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e G u n t h e r s f a c i e case that the September n o t i f i c a t i o n f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h § 35-11-210. 20 22, Further, 2009, even 2120511 assuming that such a prima facie case indicated i n our d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s issue was made, as is i n addressing the G u n t h e r s ' arguments t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C a r p e t S y s t e m s , C a r p e t Systems s u b m i t t e d what a p p e a r s t o be a n o t i f i c a t i o n i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 35-11-210. parties We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by created genuine r e s o l v e d by t h e t r i a l The issues The fact to record demonstrates the e x i s t e n c e of genuine Systems, and T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h a t t h e we reverse the j u d g m e n t and f o r further proceedings consistent with trial court's be issues c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Carpet cause material court. of m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h i s a c t i o n . trial of the denial of the Gunthers' remand this of the opinion. summary-judgment motion i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n , Thomas, Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , 21 J J . , concur.

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.