Terry Hutchenson v. Joseph C. Daniel

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 11/20/2009 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, 2009-2010 2080616 T e r r y Hutchenson v. Joseph C. D a n i e l Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (CV-08-212) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Terry Court's For Hutchenson partial the reasons judgment appeals from the Lauderdale Circuit s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f J o s e p h C. D a n i e l . stated h e r e i n , we r e v e r s e a n d remand t h e cause f o rfurther the t r i a l court's proceedings. 2080616 This case a r i s e s from c e r t a i n r e p a i r work that performed Daniel's are f o rDaniel home. located "deals with in the The s t a t u t e s i n Chapter and r e t a i n i n g w a l l relevant 14A o f T i t l e located at to the present 34, A l a . appeal Code 1 9 7 5 , w h i c h t h e l i c e n s i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l s and companies engaged profession Fausnight purpose on a p a t i o Hutchenson of v. Perkins, 994 S o . 2 d 9 1 2 , 916 ( A l a . of the chapter residential i s described home i n § construction." 2008). 34-14A-1, The which provides: "In the interest of the public health, safety, w e l f a r e , and consumer p r o t e c t i o n and t o r e g u l a t e t h e home b u i l d i n g and p r i v a t e dwelling construction industry, the purpose of this chapter, and t h e intent of the Legislature i n passing i t , i s to provide f o r the licensure o f t h o s e p e r s o n s who engage i n home building and p r i v a t e dwelling construction, i n c l u d i n g remodeling, and t o p r o v i d e home b u i l d i n g s t a n d a r d s i n t h e S t a t e o f Alabama. The L e g i s l a t u r e r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e home b u i l d i n g and home i m p r o v e m e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n industries are significant industries. Home b u i l d e r s may p o s e s i g n i f i c a n t h a r m t o t h e p u b l i c when unqualified, i n c o m p e t e n t , o r d i s h o n e s t home b u i l d i n g contractors and remodelers provide inadequate, unsafe or inferior building services. The L e g i s l a t u r e finds it necessary to regulate the residential home b u i l d i n g and remodeling c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r i e s . " Section obtain 34-14A-5 a license requires from "residential t h e Alabama 2 Home home builders" Builders to Licensure 2080616 Board ("the "residential Board"). Section 34-14A-2(10) home b u i l d e r , " i n p e r t i n e n t part, defines a as " [ o ] n e ... who, f o r a f i x e d p r i c e , c o m m i s s i o n , f e e , or wage, u n d e r t a k e s or offers to undertake the construction or superintending of the construction ... o f a n y r e s i d e n c e ... w h i c h i s n o t o v e r three f l o o r s i n h e i g h t ... , o r t h e r e p a i r , i m p r o v e m e n t , o r r e i m p r o v e m e n t t h e r e o f , t o be u s e d b y a n o t h e r as a r e s i d e n c e when t h e c o s t o f t h e u n d e r t a k i n g exceeds ten thousand d o l l a r s ($10,000)." Section 34-14A-2(9) d e f i n e s providing for complete one o r more living, 34-14A-14 independent persons, sleeping, eating, provides, residential home action residential violation home of this We t u r n appeal. standard by which reflects Hutchenson, into a including cooking, the "shall permanent part, which provisions f o r that not b r i n g of he an Section unlicensed or maintain any contract o r she e n t e r e d any for into i n chapter." The this the record, court considered reviews following. a stonemason, contract unit facilities and s a n i t a t i o n . " provisions building living now t o t h e f a c t u a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l present infra, builder as " [ a ] s i n g l e residential i n pertinent enforce to a "residence" whereby 3 i n light a summary In and D a n i e l , Hutchenson history of the June judgment, see or July t h e homeowner, agreed of the 2007, entered to renovate and 2080616 repair a flagstone Daniel's home Hutchenson project patio, a retaining wall, f o r an performed increased estimated t h e work cost of f o r Daniel, and a walkway a t $45,000. the cost While of the t o $75,000 b e c a u s e o f c e r t a i n u n a n t i c i p a t e d c o n d i t i o n s a n d b e c a u s e D a n i e l made s e v e r a l c h a n g e s t o t h e w o r k called f o r i n the contract. discussed t h e p r o p o s e d change Before with each Daniel change, Hutchenson and a l l o w e d t o make a d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h a t c h a n g e . affidavit, and Hutchenson d e s c r i b e d the r e t a i n i n g wall, those as w e l l the arrangement as t h e work Daniel I n an of the patio he p e r f o r m e d o n s t r u c t u r e s , as f o l l o w s : "The b a c k o f t h e D a n i e l ' s r e s i d e n c e w h e r e t h e r e t a i n i n g w a l l and f l a g s t o n e p a t i o a r e l o c a t e d faces g e n e r a l l y south. "The e a s t p a r t o f t h e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , w h i c h I w o r k e d o n , s t e p s down e a s t w a r d l y t o t h e g r o u n d a n d does n o t t o u c h t h e r e s i d e n c e . "The w e s t p a r t o f t h e r e t a i n i n g w a l l w h i c h I w o r k e d on, ends a t t h e t o p o f f l a g s t o n e s t e p s t h a t l e a d i n a s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n t o t h e ground and does not touch t h e house. From t h e f l a g s t o n e s t e p s on the west p a r t o f t h e w a l l , t h e w a l l extends and c i r c l e s back t o t h e n o r t h and abuts t h e r e s i d e n c e . My o r i g i n a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h M r . D a n i e l d i d n o t c o v e r any work c o v e r i n g t h i s e x t e n s i o n o f t h e west w a l l . "During the progress o f t h e work, [Daniel] requested me, as an a d d on to the original a g r e e m e n t , t o c h i s e l o u t c e r t a i n c o n c r e t e on t h e t o p 4 2080616 of t h e e x t e n s i o n w a l l and t o r e p l a c e t h e c o n c r e t e w i t h a l i m e s t o n e c a p , w h i c h I a g r e e d t o do, and d i d perform. T h i s l i m e s t o n e cap i s t h e o n l y work t h a t I d i d on t h e e x t e n s i o n w a l l a n d t h e l i m e s t o n e c a p w h i c h I p l a c e d on t o p o f t h e w a l l , abutted the r e s i d e n c e b u t i s n o t i n a n y way a t t a c h e d t o t h e residence. "The f l a g s t o n e p a t i o i s l o c a t e d between the retaining wall, i n c l u d i n g the extension w a l l to the w e s t , as d e s c r i b e d above. The f l a g s t o n e p a t i o s i t s on a c o n c r e t e f o u n d a t i o n w h i c h a b u t s t h e r e s i d e n c e but i s not a p a r t of the r e s i d e n c e or the f o u n d a t i o n of the r e s i d e n c e . The e a v e o f t h e r e s i d e n c e h a n g s o v e r t h e p a t i o a b o u t 3 o r 5 f e e t a n d a b o u t 8 t o 10 f e e t i n height from the base of the p a t i o . "As a p a r t o f my a g r e e m e n t w i t h [ D a n i e l ] , I c h i s e l e d up a l l t h e e x i s t i n g f l a g s t o n e s , r e p l a c e d some p a r t s o f t h e c o n c r e t e f o u n d a t i o n , c l e a n e d t h e f l a g s t o n e s and t h e n r e p l a c e d them i n t h e c o n c r e t e foundation of the p a t i o . " On J u l y 1, 2 0 0 8 , H u t c h e n s o n of contract. In h i s complaint, c o m p l e t e d t h e work c a l l e d still On material 22, 2008, he alleging alleged that f o r i n the contract but that owed h i m $ 1 8 , 9 8 7 . 7 5 , August sued D a n i e l which Daniel Daniel filed an had r e f u s e d answer a l l e g a t i o n s of Hutchenson's complaint. breach he Daniel t o pay. denying 1 had the On t h e same D a n i e l also f i l e d a counterclaim against Hutchenson i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d , e s s e n t i a l l y , t h a t H u t c h e n s o n h a d c o m m i t t e d f r a u d when he p r o v i d e d D a n i e l w i t h t h e $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 e s t i m a t e f o r t h e r e p a i r w o r k D a n i e l was s e e k i n g t o h a v e c o m p l e t e d . The t r i a l c o u r t has n o t , as y e t , r e s o l v e d t h e m e r i t s o f D a n i e l ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m , and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m i s not a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. 1 5 2080616 day, Daniel which he as that that Hutchenson was required, l i c e n s e d by have such a under § Daniel attached the license, 34-14A-14 among o t h e r for a partial term i s d e f i n e d Hutchenson have been an a motion argued builder" result, filed from enforcing In his Hutchenson the "residence" contended is affidavit and to Daniel's things, abutted that the patio, of Daniel's defined In that Daniel's parties' a to not barred contract. i n w h i c h he stated, r e t a i n i n g w a l l were that they structural summary-judgment part not quoted above. other the did was i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the in § that the house but an affidavit patio the and were residence, s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a t i o r e s t e d on In the term his which Hutchenson stated, among of the attached parts of and of a foundation 6 as support affidavit, part not motion, retaining wall, 34-14A-2. o p p o s i t i o n , Hutchenson submitted are 34-14A-5, Hutchenson the as house." opposition walkway were § s t r u c t u r e o f h i s h o u s e and were " p e r m a n e n t l y a t t a c h e d the to in home that, Because Hutchenson t h i n g s , t h a t t h e p a t i o and of "residential pursuant argued, t o h i s m o t i o n an a i n § 34-14A-2 and Board. Daniel " i n t e g r a l p a r t " of the components was summary j u d g m e n t retaining wall to i t . t h a t was He also separate 2080616 from the foundation Hutchenson obtained also filed from administering the the regarding the Board, after from the which copy of the Daniel's an the the state dispute. reciting relevant the house advisory In rested. opinion he agency p r o v i s i o n s of Chapter 1975, s t a t u t e s d i d not a Board, Code H u t c h e n s o n and on charged of T i t l e 34, that advisory opinion, facts provided to s t a t u t e s , wrote t h a t the entering i n t o the with 14A r e q u i r e H u t c h e n s o n t o have o b t a i n e d Board before contract Ala. i t by relevant a license with Daniel: " B a s e d on t h e n a r r o w q u e s t i o n y o u p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e B o a r d ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and the narrow set of circumstances described in this advisory opinion, the Board f i n d s t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y you have d e s c r i b e d i n your request, alone, does not r e q u i r e t h a t a c o n t r a c t o r h a v e a home b u i l d e r ' s l i c e n s e , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e amount o f t h e c o n t r a c t . N e i t h e r the w a l l , the p a t i o , the walkway, nor the sidewalk is a 'residence' or a ' s t r u c t u r e ' as defined in Ala. Code ( 1 9 7 5 ) § 34-14A-2. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of a r e t a i n i n g w a l l , p a t i o , walkway, or s i d e w a l k and t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f f l a g s t o n e o r s p l i t face blocks thereon, is typically considered ' s u b c o n t r a c t i n g ' or a s p e c i a l t y f u n c t i o n activity w i t h i n the i n d u s t r y . A specialty function activity i s a b l e t o be p e r f o r m e d b y a c o n t r a c t o r a l o n e and does not r e q u i r e the h i r i n g of s u b c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) to p e r f o r m any w o r k . "This advisory opinion is limited to those instances where the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a retaining wall, patio, walkway, or sidewalk and the installation of flagstone or split face blocks t h e r e o n do n o t a f f e c t t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y of 7 had 2080616 the residence and w h e r e no subcontractor(s) are h i r e d to perform work o u t s i d e the s p e c i a l t y f u n c t i o n trade. T h i s a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n does not apply to those instances where the construction of a r e t a i n i n g w a l l , p a t i o , walkway, or s i d e [ w a l k ] and the i n s t a l l a t i o n of f l a g s t o n e or s p l i t f a c e b l o c k s thereon a f f e c t s the structural integrity of the r e s i d e n c e , or where o t h e r s u b c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) are h i r e d to perform work o u t s i d e the specialty function activity." Daniel filed because, Ala. R. did not a motion according Civ. P., to strike t o him, and Board's i t d i d not i t contained r u l e on that also filed advisory opinion comply w i t h Rule hearsay. The 56(e), trial court motion. Hutchenson stated that retaining he had wall that direct testimony "never the affidavit reviewed Daniel summary-judgment m o t i o n . had the photographs had submitted Although permanently attached seen or to a house." an of in architect the patio support h o u s e , he known The of a offer architect also that he is stated: "Due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w a l l o f t h e h o u s e i s on a d i f f e r e n t f o u n d a t i o n t h a n t h e p a t i o , and t h e p a t i o , which i s l o c a t e d o u t s i d e of the house, i s s u b j e c t to e x p a n s i o n a n d c o n t r a c t i o n due to changing outdoor t e m p e r a t u r e s , good a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r a c t i c e i s to put an e x p a n s i o n j o i n t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y w i d e and 4" h i g h b e t w e e n t h e h o u s e and t h e p a t i o . Such a p a t i o d o e s n o t i n a n y way s u p p o r t t h e h o u s e a n d i s n o t an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e home. The house can exist 8 his stated that patio who and of the a r c h i t e c t d i d not r e l a t e d to Daniel's designed, of 2080616 without the patio t h e home." On January granting its wall to 16, 2009, Daniel's order, motion the t r i a l which [Daniel]'s was u n d i s p u t e d and standing Daniel. the to court pursue court's court denied. that, by partial an the a order In of and constituted repairs, d i d not hold Because i t a license issued that Hutchenson lacked a motion to a l t e r , summary part repairs of the residence." Hutchenson f i l e d pursuant such, were h i s breach-of-contract appellate jurisdiction, court as [Hutchenson] t r a n s f e r r e d h i s appeal this entered summary j u d g m e n t . repairs court concluded Hutchenson f i l e d trial made Hutchenson by t h e B o a r d , t h e t r i a l court without found " t h a t t h e p a t i o and r e t a i n i n g or reimprovement that can e x i s t for a partial [Hutchenson] undertaken improvement, the t r i a l court residence renovations and t h e p a t i o judgment, an a p p e a l action against amend, o r which to this t o t h e supreme c o u r t vacate the trial court. This f o r lack of and t h a t c o u r t d e f l e c t e d t h e appeal to § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. to 2 O n J u n e 4, 2 0 0 9 , D a n i e l f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e appeal. He a r g u e d t h a t t h e p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t d i d n o t constitute a final, appealable judgment because his counterclaim remained pending i n the t r i a l court. See s u p r a n.1. Hutchenson responded by f i l i n g a motion to s t a y the a p p e a l and t o remand t h e cause t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a m o t i o n t o make t h e p a r t i a l s u m m a r y 2 9 2080616 "The judgment standard by which i s well settled: we review a summary "'We review [ a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t ] de novo, a p p l y i n g t h e o f t - s t a t e d p r i n c i p l e s governing appellate review of a trial court's grant or denial of a summary-judgment m o t i o n : "'"We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f review the t r i a l court used i n determining whether the evidence presented to the t r i a l court created a genuine issue of material fact. Once a party moving f o r a summary judgment e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of material fact exists, the b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. 'Substantial evidence' i s 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of i m p a r t i a l judgment can reasonably infer the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought t o be proved.' In reviewing a summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable t o t h e nonmovant and j u d g m e n t f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. This c o u r t g r a n t e d Hutchenson's motion and r e i n v e s t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r 14 d a y s w i t h i n w h i c h t o e n t e r , i f a p p r o p r i a t e , an o r d e r m a k i n g t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 54(b). Upon b e i n g r e i n v e s t e d with jurisdiction, the t r i a l court certified the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . S u b s e q u e n t l y , and as a r e s u l t , t h i s c o u r t d e n i e d Daniel's motion to dismiss the appeal. 10 2080616 entertain such reasonable i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y would have been f r e e t o draw."' " A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . C o . v . A m S o u t h B a n k , 825 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 790 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g N a t i o n w i d e P r o p . & C a s . I n s . C o . v . DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P.C., 7 92 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 , 372 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . " Saad v. Saad, (Ala. [Ms. 2 0 8 0 3 2 1 , A u g . 21 , 200 9] So. 3d C i v . App. 2009). It i s Hutchenson result, undisputed a license that the t o engage Board i n home h i s breach-of-contract has never building, action against p r e c l u d e d i f he i s a " r e s i d e n t i a l home b u i l d e r . " Ala. Code 1975. Hutchenson question was Because to perform the contract f o r Daniel Hutchenson i s a work that patio, the residence retaining constituted reimprovement" Hutchenson he Daniel's wall, "the of a "residence." contends performed house and that work and, as a r e s u l t , i s builder he p e r f o r m e d repair, at to the Daniel's improvement, or § 3 4 - 1 4 A - 2 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 not and r e t a i n i n g physically are not part unit" comprising Daniel's residence. 11 home t h e walkway the patio are Daniel $10,000, t h e residential the repair a n d , as a f o r t h e work exceeded whether issued § 34-14A-14, price on w h e t h e r turns which , wall attached on to of the "single He a r g u e s t h a t , although 2080616 the patio and t h e r e t a i n i n g house, they are not attached house does support of not r e l y and t h a t opinion court should give also weight of case Daniel's He a r g u e s t h a t t h e or the r e t a i n i n g quotes to the present great the back and t h e p a t i o Hutchenson pertaining abut t o t h e house. on t h e p a t i o t h e house one a n o t h e r . wall exist independently the Board's and argues and d e f e r e n c e wall f o r advisory that this to the Board's opinion. The Board, support of things, that the Hutchenson's the patio residence Board as a m i c u s c u r i a e , appeal. filed an a p p e l l a t e I t argues, and t h e r e t a i n i n g w a l l because they are not attached brief i n among other are not part t o t h e house. of The writes: "The Board has c o n s i s t e n t l y taken t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t when t h e o b j e c t o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n d o e s n o t m e e t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a r e s i d e n c e , when t h e w o r k t o be p e r f o r m e d c o n s i s t s o f o n e f u n c t i o n o n l y a n d d o e s not require the hiring of any additional subcontractors, o r when t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y o f the residence i s n o t a f f e c t e d b y t h e w o r k t o be performed, the tradesman or s p e c i a l t y function c o n t r a c t o r i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o h o l d a home b u i l d e r s l i c e n s e as t h e work i s o u t s i d e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Board." Citing v. this court's J i m Beam B r a n d s decision i n Alabama Department o f Revenue C o . , 11 S o . 3 d 858 12 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008), 2080616 the Board statute, agency weigh argues that, " [ i ] n construing charged with heavily with 214 the the enforcement was the of Chapter term required the broadly detached purposes time, of a of 14A to supply statute 14A of of T i t l e part defined a garage, are as 34. a definition this a the even Importantly, result, of that court 699 to term though term at for that a definition this court in disposing wrote: "As we have n o t e d , the A c t ' s definition of 'residential home b u i l d e r ' i n c l u d e s persons who ' u n d e r t a k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n ... o f a n y b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e ... t o be u s e d b y a n o t h e r a s a r e s i d e n c e . ' Ala. Code 1975, § 34-14A-2(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, the term ' s t r u c t u r e ' i s d e f i n e d i n the Act as '[a] residence.' Id. § 34-14A-2(7). U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the term ' r e s i d e n c e ' i s not itself d e f i n e d i n the A c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e w o r d ' r e s i d e n c e ' as it i s used i n t h e A c t by r e f e r e n c e to general p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n . 13 So. of the "residence" d i d not c o n t a i n and, I n so d o i n g , court that Title 34 B o a r d v. S o w e l l , this i n concluding "residence," appeal. 1997), f r o m a h o u s e , was Chapter said court." ( A l a . C i v . App. "residence" it meaning i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s t a t u t e by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e I n S t a t e Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e 2d the of was of 2080616 "'The w o r d " r e s i d e n c e " means "a b u i l d i n g u s e d as a home."' W a i t e s v . T o r a n , 411 So. 2d 127, 129 (Ala. 1982) (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l D i c t i o n a r y , ' R e s i d e n c e , ' a t 1931 (1971)). However, u n d e r a number o f a u t h o r i t i e s , ' [ t ] h e word i s not c o n f i n e d m e r e l y t o t h e d w e l l i n g h o u s e , b u t i t may include everything used to make the home more c o m f o r t a b l e and e n j o y a b l e . ' 77 C . J . S . R e s i d e n c e , a t 293 (1952) (citing L i n n v . Z i e g l e r , 68 K a n . 528 , 531, 75 P. 4 8 9 , 4 90 (1904 ) ( c o n s t r u i n g h o m e s t e a d e x e m p t i o n s t a t u t e ) ) ; a c c o r d , S t a t e v . G a r d e l l a , 156 A r i z . 3 4 0 , 3 4 2 , 751 P.2d 1 0 0 0 , 1001 ( C t . App. 1988) ( c o n s t r u i n g r e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a r y s t a t u t e ) ; see a l s o Thomas v . Z o n i n g B d . o f A d j u s t m e n t , 241 S.W.2d 9 5 5 , 959 (Tex. C i v . App. 1951) ( h o l d i n g t h a t swimming p o o l c o n t r i b u t e d t o u s e o f home; q u o t i n g A s h t o n v . I n g l e , 20 K a n . 670, 681 ( 1 8 7 8 ) ) ; c f . I n r e E s t a t e o f S a n d e r s f e l d , 187 C a l . A p p . 2 d 14, 17, 9 C a l . R p t r . 447, 4 4 9 - 5 0 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( h o u s e d e s c r i b e d as a p e r s o n ' s 'home' i n a w i l l i n c l u d e s n o t o n l y s t r u c t u r e a n d t h e l a n d upon w h i c h i t i s s i t u a t e d , b u t a l s o any g a r a g e o r o u t b u i l d i n g s w h i c h make up a r e s i d e n c e ) ; I n r e N i e s e n ' s E s t a t e , 46 O h i o Op. 164, 1 6 6 - 6 7 , 103 N . E . 2 d 24, 27 ( H a m i l t o n Co. P r o b . C t . 1951) (holding that 'home' i n c l u d e s a d j a c e n t g a r a g e , a n d n o t i n g t h a t a t common l a w ' d w e l l i n g house' i n c l u d e d the privy, b a r n , s t a b l e , cow h o u s e , a n d d a i r y h o u s e , i f t h e y a r e p a r t o f t h e same p a r c e l , a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e not u n d e r t h e same r o o f o r c o n t i g u o u s t o i t ) . C l e a r l y , then, the term 'residence' is not necessarily l i m i t e d t o a d w e l l i n g where one's b e d r o o m and living room are located, but may include anything facilitating the enjoyment of the principal dwelling." 699 So. 2d The at 219-20. legislature remedied the lack of a statutory d e f i n i t i o n o f " r e s i d e n c e " when, i n 2002, i t amended § 34-14A-2 to provide a definition of "residence." 14 See Act No. 2002-72, 2080616 Ala. Acts 2002. Clearly intending of the term "residence" to house, a residence as facilities sanitation." Code in unattached stated for 1975) Sowell, for Id. at (emphasis applying garage, was complete or living, 1 unattached defined more persons, sleeping, legislatively eating, § 24-14A- this Thus, term a independent ( c o d i f i e d as added). the application above, one § the structures single unit providing living and Ala. holding as permanent p r o v i s i o n s cooking, 2(9), t o b u i l d i n g s and legislature, "[a] residential including the to preclude court's "residence" overruled by to an Act No. 2002-72. The evidence presented Daniel's summary-judgment question whether attached to evidence indicated that Daniel's "permanently however, foundation house the t h a t was rested patio abutted house and the to the motion patio attached" Hutchenson to and or that, patio the and the abutted the the on the wall i t . were Daniel's retaining wall In his patio foundation were affidavit, rested on on which retaining wall house, t h e y were not 15 regarding retaining house. that court conflicting the from the although the back of the was merely testified separate trial and attached a the the to 2080616 the back credit with of the house. Hutchenson's regard retaining to retaining wall comprising Daniel's would have not result, to would from opinion this builder part that on of patio the Daniel, a result, held Daniel and, have the t r i a l relies. i n Hollinger a i n order obtained court a erred of Daniel. 3 S o . 3 d 216 ( A l a . As p o i n t e d that repairs to a residence. argued because nor, f o r that matter, was work as out by to a not, i n fact, 16 that the back i t was not i s there attached back 3 So. 3d a t 220. i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e H o l l i n g e r o p i n i o n i n Hollinger porch to unit" repair residence; the and t h e "single Hutchenson's a and the patio i n H o l l i n g e r v. W e l l s , the residence residence, back the evidence i s not a l t e r e d by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f constituted repairs of Daniel's summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r on w h i c h court However, t h e r e the As r e s u l t we r e a c h App. 2008), part be with a partial Civ. the than whether conducted the Board. court's porch i f a j u r y were t o to the house, residence; been this Daniel, not h i s contract when i t e n t e r e d The rather question attached that, t h a t Hutchenson would not have been r e q u i r e d , enforce license conclude testimony the w a l l were We that porch was n o t attached to the any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t to the residence. 2080616 Therefore, i t does Hollinger a not appear question similar present case, abutting but not attached the single that to i . e . ,whether a this court t h e one patio unit comprising presented and to a residence addressed in i n the retaining wall constitute part of the residence. F u r t h e r m o r e , we a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d b y D a n i e l ' s r e l i a n c e on the term i n the p a r t i e s ' handwritten Hutchenson would provide We are not, in colloquialisms handwritten r e p a i r work f o r D a n i e l ' s resolving and b r o a d contract precisely when legislatively be of drafting single indicting, the term their "residence" in and Simply the as defined the repairs as t h a t in § there p u t , we parties' the residence t h e p a r t i e s were contract. reference "dwelling" that said, by i n the p a r t i e s ' whether defined that "dwelling." confined contained to Daniel's and evidence appeal, deciding i t can h a r d l y Indeed, scope this language H u t c h e n s o n p e r f o r m e d were is contract indicating term 34-14A-2(9). i s certainly contemplating by statute refuse contract no the when to allow to a Daniel's t o d e f i n e t h e scope o f t h e work t h e p a r t i e s agreed Hutchenson would perform or t o i n f l u e n c e whether the scope of 17 2080616 that work before required entering Based genuine was on issue a that that Hutchenson contract "residential we fact home by the Board i n order Daniel. As a r e s u l t , the t r i a l it entered reverse for a partial that judgment conclude regarding builder" licensed 3 that required court summary j u d g m e n t work. there whether to enforce to have REVERSED AND Pittman, B r y a n , a n d Thomas, been h i s contract with to reversal when erred i n favor with i s a Hutchenson of Daniel. and remand t h e cause t o t h e t r i a l further proceedings consistent Moore, by t h e Board and engaging i n t h a t the foregoing, of material be l i c e n s e d this We court opinion. REMANDED. J . , concurs in J J . , concur. the result, without writing. I n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , we have n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h e B o a r d ' s a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n i s s u e d t o H u t c h e n s o n , a n d we t a k e no p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e Board's view t h a t whether t h e b u i l d e r e m p l o y e d a s u b c o n t r a c t o r o r p e r f o r m e d work r e l a t e d t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y o f a house make a d i f f e r e n c e i n determining whether the builder i s a "residential home b u i l d e r " as d e f i n e d i n § 34-14A-2(10). Thus, we do n o t address D a n i e l ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e Board's a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n i s not p e r s u a s i v e because, D a n i e l a s s e r t s , Hutchenson s u p p l i e d the Board w i t h i n a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . 3 18

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.