Angela D. Franklin and Charles L. Franklin v. Walter Mitchell d/b/a Southern Classic Construction

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2091053 Angela D. F r a n k l i n and C h a r l e s L. F r a n k l i n v. Walter M i t c h e l l d/b/a Southern C l a s s i c C o n s t r u c t i o n Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-186) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Angela summary judgment proprietor We D. F r a n k l i n a n d C h a r l e s affirm. doing i n favor business of L. F r a n k l i n a p p e a l Walter as S o u t h e r n Mitchell, Classic from a a sole Construction. 2091053 In the June 2001, M i t c h e l l agreed Franklins for $143,500, specifications supplied complete, the and t o b u i l d a new according to by the F r a n k l i n s . Franklins moved house f o r plans and Construction into the was residence, in October 2001. In and April Charles noticed i n t h e house were Franklin investigate, what the Franklins floors kitchen 2006, was Mitchell causing the Mitchell information space to sag. and under t h e house t o Franklin that, and attempted manufacturer's home inspection inspector, of the house. home-inspection report, contacted could an be earlier d e f e c t i v e f l o o r i n g m a t e r i a l from the he gave Franklin f o r the f l o o r i n g supplier. Franklin on without the contact For the next success to deal eight with the representative. I n March 2007, t h e F r a n k l i n s engaged a c i v i l licensed "sagging." the f l o o r i n g material acknowledged he h a d r e c e i v e d manufacturer, flooring floors and i n q u i r e d whether occasion, months, the crawl soft the bathroom b u t he s a w no d a m a g e d w o o d a n d no i n d i c a t i o n o f defective. same entered that Dr. William According the to perform t o P a y n e ' s M a r c h 7, sagging 2 Payne, e n g i n e e r and or softening of an 2007, the 2091053 subfloor was depressions in not a condensation drawing floor a i r return moisture moisture. area the result of moisture visible The was Franklins within Franklins expired, Air, that a i r was and those and f l o o r sealed having leaking floor of the a n d was from absorbed the floor leaks provided a constant Mold and mildew were joists. contacted t h e one-year b u t he o f f e r e d inches from The d e p r e s s i o n i n t h e k i t c h e n i t e m s e n u m e r a t e d on t h e h o m e - i n s p e c t i o n the and t h e 1 18 not properly immediately of strength of moisture boots i n the crawl space. on t h e d e c k i n g Instead, the by a l o s s of the decking's that and t h e a i r r e t u r n , source located into the area. I t appeared wood. of the absorption the air-conditioning depression was a l s o vents because on An bathroom of defective i n t h e s u b f l o o r were caused the decking decking. result Mitchell report. warranty t o have S o u t h e r n on about t h e Mitchell told h i s work had Mechanical Heating & I n c . ("SMHA"), t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r t h a t h a d i n s t a l l e d t h e F r a n k l i n ' s h e a t i n g , v e n t i l a t i n g , a n d a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g ("HVAC") s y s t e m ( a n d whose p r i n c i p a l , J i m M i t c h e l l , a t t h e F r a n k l i n s ' HVAC s y s t e m . 1 A p p a r e n t l y , a boot i sh i s f a t h e r ) look Walter M i t c h e l l i s the housing 3 admitted f o r an a i r v e n t . that 2091053 he later told h i s father, [ F r a n k l i n ] i s a good guy; In Robert late March Jim Mitchell, I've that known h i m ; l e t ' s or early April 2007, D e m p s e y , a n SMHA s u b c o n t r a c t o r , f i x "Charles i t . " Jim Mitchell replaced the subfloor near t h e F r a n k l i n s ' bathroom and braced t h e s u b f l o o r i n front o f t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r . SMHA l a t e r u n d e r t o o k f u r t h e r r e p a i r s an SMHA c r e w w e n t i n t o t h e F r a n k l i n s ' c r a w l the ducts, they seal the a i r return, left, determine Charles what repairs with t h e work t h a t not a l l insulation mildew. look had been had been on t h e b o o t s . Franklin contacted a t w h a t he c o n s i d e r e d fixed. Walter work t h a t Franklin Mitchell space t o tape a l l made. the crawl He was and that also saw t a p e Walter space there over inspected t h e F r a n k l i n s ' house, any gratuitous been undertaken had been only attempted because were he a n d F r a n k l i n 4 t o be the and t o l d t o do a n y t h i n g b e c a u s e t h e He a l s o that no mold and needed o n e - y e a r w a r r a n t y on h i s work h a d e x p i r e d . repairs was that M i t c h e l l and asked him t o to the premises, h e was n o t o b l i g a t e d to dissatisfied was f a u l t y w o r k t h a t came After S p e c i f i c a l l y , he saw taped He h a d b e e n done u n d e r that inspected had been done. the ducts when and i n s u l a t e t h e boots. Franklin and stated were that and had friends. 2091053 Franklin later willing to insurance report asked turn Jim Mitchell the F r a n k l i n s ' company; J i m M i t c h e l l the complaints to whether SMHA complaints would over be t oi t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t SMHA w o u l d n o t i t s insurer. He also informed F r a n k l i n t h a t t h e r e p a i r s w e r e u n n e c e s s a r y , t h a t t h e HVAC w o r k was i n i t i a l l y repairs only Charles discuss the done c o r r e c t l y , a n d t h a t because h i s son Walter Franklin subsequently filing alleged attorney faulty told opinion a claim against on t h e r e p a i r w o r k h a d a s k e d h i m t o do s o . contacted JimMitchell r e p a i r work. him i t would he h a d u n d e r t a k e n t h e According be necessary an a t t o r n e y to a n d SMHA b a s e d o n to Franklin, the t o g e t an and t o pay t h e a t t o r n e y expert a $5,000 retainer. F r a n k l i n s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o p a y t h e attorney; instead, he b e g a n saving h i s money t o get another home i n s p e c t i o n b y P a y n e . On March inspection repairs Payne veneer 18, report. 2008, The r e p o r t had not remedied found submitted concluded the moisture between had been 5 second home- the attempted problem. In addition, improperly the sheathing a that two a d d i t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e h o u s e flashing Payne defects: the brick installed a n d t h e weep holes, without and t h e 2091053 piers and under the brick installed. Engineering at On hearth improperly 21, 2008, April had been Mid-South Company c o n d u c t e d an i n d o o r the F r a n k l i n s ' request. The the unless crawl affected proper space, assessment negligent o f t h e house noted would be heavily sued W a l t e r M i t c h e l l Classic asserting Construction, construction, of contract. subsequent negligent M i t c h e l l denied complaint against construction Insulation -- Franklins, then Walter Franklins' Mitchell claims, accrued, filed of the subcontractors -- asserting those repairs, several a f f i r m a t i v e defenses, three project claims the allegations statute of l i m i t a t i o n s . M i t c h e l l also claim The r e p o r t the 11, 2009, t h e F r a n k l i n s c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t e d the confirmed by mold. Southern breach and w e r e made t o t h e HVAC d u c t w o r k i n the i n t e r i o r On F e b r u a r y d/b/a repairs Testing a i r - q u a l i t y assessment presence o f mold and mildew i n t h e d w e l l i n g . that constructed SMHA, that DH subcontractors moved for a contending that and t h e two-year 6 was were summary of the including on t h e F r a n k l i n and liable liable Frakes to the to him. judgment the Franklins' statutory and a third-party Masonry, i f he of on t h e negligence limitations period 2091053 set out i n § 6-2-38(l), A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , b e g a n t o r u n , i n A p r i l 2 0 0 6 , when t h e F r a n k l i n s in their bathroom and k i t c h e n . Franklins' negligence the Franklins of subsequent filed repairs suit negligent Mitchell were that stated made. paid for, or provided On made On t h e c l a i m that property. asserted that SMHA a n d Dempsey o v e r whom h e h a d e x e r c i s e d the breach-of-contract the F r a n k l i n s ' house, and, thus, the six-year that were no c o n t r o l claim, Mitchell accrued i n October 2001, when h e c o m p l e t e d h i s p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t 6-2-34(9), he h a d any m a t e r i a l s f o r on t h e F r a n k l i n s ' argued that the F r a n k l i n s ' c l a i m had § that the h e h a d n o t b e e n p r e s e n t when t h e r e p a i r s Mitchell supervision. 11, 2009. floors by t h e time repairs, M i t c h e l l denied independent contractors or on F e b r u a r y had been that M i t c h e l l maintained c l a i m was, t h e r e f o r e , b a r r e d performed, supervised, the f i r s t became aware o f s a g g i n g to build t h e c l a i m was b a r r e d by s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s e t o u t i n A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , when the Franklins filed suit Franklins amended t h e i r complaint on F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2009. The fraudulent Walter concealment, Mitchell's asserting allegedly that, misleading 7 t o add a c l a i m o f as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f statements that h i s 2091053 warranty had expired, repairs, and t h a t t h a t he was n o t o b l i g a t e d t o p e r f o r m a n y performed were g r a t u i t o u s , t h e F r a n k l i n s were under t h e f a l s e i m p r e s s i o n that they The d i d n o t have Franklins to rely could asserted not l e g a l l y legal a legal that upon r e p a i r s defects. the the repairs action repairs against would against thought their recourse was they Mitchell Mitchell only t o remedy the Franklins cure Mitchell. h a d b e e n made b y SMHA b e c a u s e that Accordingly, had been claim they force that while alleged, they the moisture any c o n s t r u c t i o n they delayed determined whether problems i n the crawl space. The and a filed hearing judgment Franklins their own m o t i o n on t h e m o t i o n s , i n favor Construction. Court opposed M i t c h e l l ' s summary-judgment to § the t r i a l of Walter The F r a n k l i n s o f Alabama, which pursuant f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . Mitchell timely transferred 12-2-7(6). court d/b/a/ entered Following a summary Southern appealed the appeal motion Classic t o t h e Supreme to this court 2 Notwithstanding the fact that the t r i a l court d i dnot e x p r e s s l y r u l e on W a l t e r M i t c h e l l ' s t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m s , t h e judgment appealed from i s f i n a l . The t h i r d - p a r t y claims, being dependent upon the l i a b i l i t y of M i t c h e l l to the Franklins, w e r e n e c e s s a r i l y d e n i e d when t h e t r i a l court e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f M i t c h e l l and a g a i n s t t h e Franklins. 2 8 2091053 Standard Appellate parte review B a l l e w , 771 summary judgment material fact judgment as of So. a 2d i s to exists a matter Review summary 1 04 0 be and of judgment ( A l a . 2000). g r a n t e d when the moving of law. i s de Rule no party A novo. motion genuine for a issue is entitled 56(c)(3), A l a . R. fact and law." 1038 burden prima then 1038 evidence i s no genuine [it] is entitled 56(c)(3); see ( A l a . 1992). facie at there that Rule 1036, 2d "that shifts showing Lee issue Civ. to to a judgment v. City any as the by nonmovant 'substantial omitted). of such weight and to rebut evidence.'" "[S]ubstantial quality that 592 So. the Life of the f a c t Assurance 1989); see Co. sought Lee, 592 evidence of Florida, § 12-21-12(d), 547 A l a . Code 9 So. 1975. 2d West v. 870 , 2d movant's fair-minded t o be p r o v e d . " of "the So. is persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r existence P. material a matter of Gadsden, a facie I f the movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , to (footnote as of to A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m u s t make a p r i m a showing Ex the Founders 87 1 (Ala. 2091053 Discussion The argue Franklins r a i s e three that their issues claim negligence on a p p e a l . was statute of l i m i t a t i o n s because, accrue, and by t h e say, the claim d i dnot the statute d i d not begin report aware Accordingly, complaint of what they had insist was t i m e l y that filed. to run, until i n March caused their their Second, they not barred the home-inspection received made they First, 2007 they and were floors February argue they to 11, that sag. 2009, Walter M i t c h e l l was e s t o p p e d f r o m r e l y i n g on a s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s defense because, warranty on they s a y , by h i s work induced them to believe already expired against him. had expired, that on a n y n e g l i g e n c e Third, contend, regarding there repair. the Mitchell claim one-year fraudulently of l i m i t a t i o n s had they might have had t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t on were c l a i m was e r r o n e o u s genuine issues because, of material fact w h e t h e r SMHA was W a l t e r M i t c h e l l ' s a p p a r e n t a g e n t o r agent by e s t o p p e l , repair, that the statute the s u b s e q u e n t - n e g l i g e n t - r e p a i r s they asserting whether M i t c h e l l had a nondelegable duty t o and whether M i t c h e l l v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r t o o k The F r a n k l i n s make no a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i n g 10 a duty to t h e summary 2091053 j u d g m e n t on 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 , h a v i n g c o n c e d e d i n the trial court that the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s I. Section claim s e t out barred by the i n A l a . Code 1975, A c c r u a l of 6-2-38(l) was the provides Negligence § six-year 6-2-34(9). Claim that "[a]ll a c t i o n s f o r any injury to the person or r i g h t s o f a n o t h e r n o t a r i s i n g f r o m c o n t r a c t and n o t specifically enumerated i n t h i s s e c t i o n must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " A negligence action accrues "as e n t i t l e d t o m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n , amount o f damages i s a p p a r e n t injury." Koch v. 231 (Ala. The not in April constituted unknown. at the time claimant of the 565 So. is full first Co., & Cas. a house, because, latent defect negligence first legal 2d 226, they say, the the that, without an a c t i o n a b l e i n j u r y . 883 So. the 2d was then knowing the known This court addressed, i n CertainTeed ( A l a . C i v . App. 11 floors they c o u l d not have same a r g u m e n t 1266 cause did sagging sagging which floors, claim n o t i c e d the for essentially Russell, their Franklins maintain The t h a t t h e y had that 2 0 0 6 , when t h e y c a u s e o f t h e damage t o t h e i r v. the r e g a r d l e s s of whether the Farm F i r e F r a n k l i n s contend in their rejected, as 1990). accrue floors State soon 2003). In and Corp. that 2091053 case, Carolyn noticed inside in R u s s e l l , an owner o f a n e w l y c o n s t r u c t e d a black September Russell's 1998, R u s s e l l of t h e house a judgment that 1996. had begun insulation had decomposed b y t h e HVAC as a m a t t e r limitations. The accumulate the according and had been system. later, Corporation, that, to dispersed CertainTeed moved o f l a w ("JML") o n R u s s e l l ' s claim t h e Alabama Extended M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s ("AEMLD"), a r g u i n g t h a t to More t h a n two y e a r s sued C e r t a i n T e e d ductwork complaint, throughout under residue t h e house i n January manufacturer for sooty house, Liability t h e c l a i m was b a r r e d trial court denied Doctrine by t h e s t a t u t e o f the motion and s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of Russell court o n , among o t h e r reversed repeating that claims, portion the following well h e r AEMLD c l a i m , of the t r i a l established court's but this judgment, legal principles: "Under Alabama law, a noncontract cause of a c t i o n a r i s e s when t h e f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n o f damage becomes a p p a r e n t t o t h e c l a i m a n t . Our Supreme C o u r t has s t a t e d t h e r u l e as f o l l o w s : " ' " ' " I f the a c t of which the i n j u r y i s the natural sequence i s of i t s e l f a legal i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f , a completed wrong, t h e cause o f a c t i o n a c c r u e d and t h e s t a t u t e begins to run from t h e time the a c t i s committed, be the actual damage [then apparent] however s l i g h t , and t h e s t a t u t e 12 2091053 w i l l operate to bar a recovery not only f o r the present damages but f o r damages d e v e l o p i n g s u b s e q u e n t l y and not a c t i o n a b l e at t h e time o f t h e wrong done; f o r i n such a case the subsequent increase i n the d a m a g e s r e s u l t i n g g i v e s no new c a u s e o f a c t i o n . Nor does p l a i n t i f f ' s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e t o r t o r i n j u r y , a t l e a s t i f t h e r e i s no fraudulent concealment by defendant, postpone the running of the s t a t u t e u n t i l the t o r t or i n j u r y i s d i s c o v e r e d . " ' " ' " M c W i l l i a m s v . U n i o n P a c . R e s . C o . , 569 S o . 2 d 7 0 2 , 703-04 ( A l a . 1990) ( q u o t i n g G a r r e t t v . R a y t h e o n Co., 368 S o . 2 d 5 1 6 , 519 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Home I n s . C o . v . S t u a r t - M c C o r k l e , I n c . , 291 A l a . 601, 6 0 8 , 2 8 5 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 , 473 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n , K e l l e y v . S h r o p s h i r e , 199 A l a . 6 0 2 , 75 S o . 2 9 1 , 292 ( 1 9 1 7 ) ) . " CertainTeed added). action Corp. v. R u s s e l l , This accrued court 883 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 6 9 - 7 0 concluded that when s h e o b s e r v e d (emphasis " R u s s e l l ' s AEMLD c a u s e o f t h e damage t o h e r new house, e v e n t h o u g h s h e d i d n o t know w h a t h a d c a u s e d t h e d a m a g e . " So. 2d a t 1270 In "[t]o action their (emphasis appellate added). brief, the extent that CertainTeed accrue[s] when a c l a i m a n t the Franklins suggest that, held that a personal injury observe[s] home, e v e n t h o u g h t h e c l a i m a n t d [ o e s ] damage," C e r t a i n T e e d should be Because 13 damage t o h e r new n o t know w h a t c a u s e d t h e i s flawed, unsupported overruled. 883 by a u t h o r i t y , and CertainTeed applies well 2091053 established Alabama authority dating invitation to The cause law, back to their 1917, argument sagging injury), they injury that actionable against was could by decline venerable the Franklins' that, without (which -- have known appears not they to knowing characterize that be they based statutory scheme application not of here Classic was That engineers, which because a § builders 6-5-220 Walter "builder" section and is Mitchell within s p e c i f i e s that the as upon part d/b/a meaning a builder a an Ala. action accrues. a the had § 6 - 5 - 2 2 0 ( e ) , w h i c h o u t l i n e s when a c a u s e o f architects, 220(a). supported we -- floors latent Code 1975, is overrule i t . Franklins' of and The has no Southern of § 6-5- is "[a]ny i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t n e r s h i p , f i r m , or c o r p o r a t i o n that constructed, or performed or managed the construction of, an improvement, or any portion t h e r e o f , on o r t o r e a l e s t a t e , a n d a t t h e t i m e o f the construction was licensed as a general c o n t r a c t o r i n the S t a t e of Alabama." (Emphasis licensed added.) as Walter a "residential § 3 4 - 1 4 A - 2 ( 1 0 ) , by the Mitchell testified home b u i l d e r , " s e e Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e 14 that Ala. he Code B o a r d , see was 1975, Ala. 2091053 Code 1975, § 34-14A-3, contractor's II. he d i d n o t have a general license. Estoppel The but that t o Plead Franklins the Statute-of-Limitations insist that Walter Defense M i t c h e l l was estopped f r o m r e l y i n g on a s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e b e c a u s e , say, by a s s e r t i n g expired, believe any that the one-year warranty Mitchell fraudulently that the statute negligence claim induced them on h i s w o r k h a d induced of l i m i t a t i o n s had already they might they have had a g a i n s t them t o expired on him. "When t h e p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d f r o m r a i s i n g t h e d e f e n s e o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , as t h e p l a i n t i f f s do i n t h i s c a s e , then the actions of the defendant come into q u e s t i o n . In general, conduct which i s s u f f i c i e n t t o g i v e r i s e t o an e s t o p p e l a g a i n s t t h e p l e a d i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s must amount t o an a f f i r m a t i v e inducement t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t o d e l a y b r i n g i n g t h e action." Moore v. N a t i o n a l S e c . I n s . Co., 477 So. 2d 346, 348 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a l s o S e y b o l d v . M a g n o l i a L a n d Co., 376 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. 1979). "Vague a s s u r a n c e s " do n o t amount t o an a f f i r m a t i v e inducement t o d e l a y filing suit." Moore, 477 So. Homes, I n c . v . K e n d r i c k , 810 So. 2d 645 2d a t 348. In (Ala. Jim Walter 2001), A r t h u r K e n d r i c k bought a house from J i m W a l t e r 15 2091053 Homes, I n c . ("JWH"), i n 1992. K e n d r i c k a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he knew i n 1992 t h a t t h e h o u s e h a d p r o b l e m s a n d was n o t o f "good quality" as JWH h a d w a r r a n t e d i t t o b e . When K e n d r i c k n o t i c e d defects t o JWH Kendrick sued defects a n d JWH JWH i n t h e h o u s e , he r e p o r t e d t h e undertook to repair i n 1997, a n d JWH l i m i t a t i o n s defense, arguing asserted the a defects. statute-of- t h a t K e n d r i c k h a d b e e n aware o f problems w i t h t h e house b u t had w a i t e d complaint. 810 So. 2d a t 648. Kendrick argued that f i v e years t o f i l e h i s JWH was e s t o p p e d t o a s s e r t the s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e because i t had been making repairs court as he r e p o r t e d rejected that defects argument, i n t h e house. concluding s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . The c o u r t that The supreme i t was n o t stated: " E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t s i n c e 1992 JWH h a d b e e n making repairs as K e n d r i c k reported problems. However, no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t JWH p r o m i s e d t o r e p a i r t h e d e f e c t s i n K e n d r i c k ' s house i n o r d e r t o i n d u c e K e n d r i c k n o t t o s u e JWH. The r e c o r d shows t h a t K e n d r i c k d i d n o t t h r e a t e n t o s u e JWH u n t i l O c t o b e r 1996. K e n d r i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t e a c h t i m e he r e p o r t e d a p r o b l e m he r e l i e d on JWH's s t a t i n g t o h i m t h a t t h e p r o b l e m w o u l d be f i x e d ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t JWH made, o r t h a t K e n d r i c k r e l i e d upon, a p r o m i s e t o r e p a i r i n r e t u r n f o r a promise not t osue." 810 So. 2d a t 651 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . present case. The F r a n k l i n s 16 The same i s t r u e i n t h e presented no evidence o f an 2091053 affirmative inducement -- that i s , that Walter Mitchell C l a s s i c p r o m i s e d t o make r e p a i r s on t h e F r a n k l i n s ' p r e m i s e s i n r e t u r n f o rthe F r a n k l i n s ' promise The The not t o sue. Subsequent-Negligent-Repairs Franklins argue that Claim t h e summary judgment on t h e s u b s e q u e n t - n e g l i g e n t - r e p a i r s c l a i m was e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e , say, there whether genuine issues of material SMHA was W a l t e r M i t c h e l l ' s estoppel, and were whether M i t c h e l l whether M i t c h e l l apparent agent had a nondelegable voluntarily undertook fact they regarding or agent by duty t o r e p a i r , a duty to repair. T h e i r a r g u m e n t i s p r e m i s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s : that Walter M i t c h e l l informed the F r a n k l i n s t h a t he was n o t HVAC c e r t i f i e d a n d t h a t he was n o t t r a i n e d i n m o l d a n d m i l d e w r e c o g n i t i o n and removal, and that M i t c h e l l performed t h a t SMHA made r e p a i r s to the Franklins' no r e p a i r s , HVAC s y s t e m a t the r e q u e s t o f M i t c h e l l and f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f M i t c h e l l . "Under A l a b a m a l a w , t h e t e s t o f a g e n c y i s t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l , w h e t h e r e x e r c i s e d o r n o t . Brown v. C o m m e r c i a l D i s p a t c h P u b l i s h i n g Co., 504 So. 2d 245 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . F o r one t o be an a g e n t , t h e o t h e r p a r t y must r e t a i n t h e r i g h t t o d i r e c t t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e b u s i n e s s s h a l l be done, a s w e l l as t h e r e s u l t s t o be a c c o m p l i s h e d , o r , i n o t h e r w o r d s , n o t o n l y what s h a l l be done, b u t how i t s h a l l be done. I d . a t 246. ' C o n t r o l must be p r o v e n ; a n d p r o o f o f c o n t r o l requires more t h a n p r o o f o f a mere r i g h t t o 17 2091053 d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p e r s o n c l a i m e d t o be an a g e n t i s conforming t o the requirements of a contract.' M a l m b e r g v . A m e r i c a n Honda M o t o r Company, I n c . , 64 4 So. 2 d 888 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " G l a s s v. S o u t h e r n Wrecker S a l e s , Ala. 1998). Mitchell the Although directed Franklins evidence, which 990 F. Supp. 1344, the record demonstrates that Mitchell directed Franklins presented no evidence assertions t h a t he h a d n o t s u p e r v i s e d , substantial t h e manner i n Furthermore, the to contradict paid Mitchell's f o r , or provided f o r t h e r e p a i r s and t h a t he h a d n o t been p r e s e n t when t h e r e p a i r s were made. to Walter HVAC s y s t e m , p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e , much l e s s SMHA s h o u l d a c c o m p l i s h t h e r e p a i r s . any m a t e r i a l s that SMHA t o " f i x " t h e F r a n k l i n s ' indicating 1352 (M.D. establish that, when Therefore, the Franklins SMHA performed F r a n k l i n s ' p r e m i s e s , i t was a c t i n g Moreover, no m a t t e r b y whose repairs as M i t c h e l l ' s agency, failed on t h e agent. pursuant t o what d u t y , o r u n d e r what c o m p u l s i o n t h e r e p a i r s were p e r f o r m e d , i t is undisputed that the Franklins suffered consequence o f the a l l e g e d l y negligent testimony, Charles Franklin stated no damages repairs. In deposition unequivocally that, although t h e r e p a i r s d i d not solve t h e moisture problem, did n o t make t h e p r o b l e m worse. 18 Because as a "[d]amages they a r e an 2091053 e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e t o r t o f n e g l i g e n c e , " D a v i s v . Hanson Aggregates the t r i a l Southeast, I n c . , 952 So. 2d 330, 335 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , c o u r t d i d n o t e r r 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 W a l t e r M i t c h e l l on t h e s u b s e q u e n t - n e g l i g e n t - r e p a i r s claim. Conclusion The years They Franklins d i d not f i l e of the accrual of t h e i r failed to present their complaint within negligent-construction substantial evidence two claim. demonstrating e i t h e r t h a t t h e d e l a y i n f i l i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t was a t t r i b u t a b l e to a f r a u d u l e n t concealment Mitchell, or t h a t they allegedly negligent Accordingly, we affirm o f t h e i r cause o f a c t i o n by W a l t e r suffered any damages as a r e s u l t o f repairs to the t r i a l their court's HVAC judgment system. in a l l respects. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J , a n d B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 19

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.