Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. v. Benise-Dowling & Associates, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 09/30/2009 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1080252 A r c h e r Western C o n t r a c t o r s , Ltd. v. Benise-Dowling Appeal COBB, C h i e f Archer appeals trial & Associates, Inc. from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CV-08-900701) Court Justice. Western from the t r i a l court's Contractors, court's granting L t d . ("Archer amended of the motion Western"), j u d g m e n t , b a s e d on t h e of Benise-Dowling & 1080252 Associates, Inc. judgment. We ("Benise-Dowling"), to construct March and Procedural a building 2005, Archer i t was Georgia." to The be History ("the RSA Western tower" ) the entered RSA i n Mobile 1 into tower. "governed The by the business principal After dispute business place of is located." in arose began b e t w e e n i t and sued "RSA" Alabama." an is of the to the c o u r t in provided State of arising ... where Western's] principal Western's principal Archer Georgia, ("the as is Benise-Dowling's business. Benise-Dowling Benise-Dowling 1 is submitted In performed subcontract also provided that disputes p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d or where [ A r c h e r of subcontract laws the place i n 2005. subcontract o f t h e c o n t r a c t " s h a l l be of a f o r w o r k t o be out place original t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r on a p r o j e c t t o with Benise-Dowling c o n s t r u c t i o n of that the remand. W e s t e r n was subcontract") the and Facts Archer reverse amend Archer work Archer Western abbreviation 2 for on the Western. and RSA On tower, May i t s bonding "Retirement 5, a 2008, company, Systems of 1080252 Travelers C a s u a l t y and S u r e t y Company, Court. Benise-Dowling alleged Western had pay failed Benise-Dowling The says parties to Benise-Dowling Archer ground t h a t B e n i s e - D o w l i n g was at time had moved i t started for a Therefore, 3 summary t h e RSA 10-2B-15.02(a), suing on the Archer seq., in Archer A l a . Code 1975, Western to Western, argued 1975, to the that, transact A l a . Code pursuant B e n i s e - D o w l i n g was perform alternatively required work that Benise-Dowling as Benise-Dowling T r a v e l e r s C a s u a l t y and this appeal. Therefore, involvement i n the case. 2 on Benise-Dowling of s t a t e contended, 22, to barred § from s u b c o n t r a c t i n Alabama. A l a . Code Alabama Western work on A u g u s t judgment tower, the s e c r e t a r y Archer for the s u b c o n t r a c t . b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a as r e q u i r e d b y § 1 0 - 2 B - 1 5 . 0 1 ( a ) , 1975. Archer a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n and w o r k on n o t been a u t h o r i z e d by under Circuit that $886,786 w i t h d i s c o v e r y , and, 2008, the Western i n the Mobile i n i t s complaint i t performed proceeded 2 a contractor. was not § 34-8-1 t o be licensed According properly S u r e t y Company i s n o t we do not discuss et to licensed a p a r t y to Travelers' Sometime after i t began work on the RSA tower, Benise-Dowling o b t a i n e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of a u t h o r i t y , although t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e w h e t h e r t h a t c e r t i f i c a t e was r e l a t e d t o the s u b c o n t r a c t . 3 3 1080252 during two separate and allegedly Therefore, Archer Western contended, from relevant periods. B e n i s e - D o w l i n g was b a r r e d s u i n g on t h e s u b c o n t r a c t a n d t h e s u b c o n t r a c t was Benise-Dowling filed accompanied by exhibits. On September following a i n opposition 2008, 26, brief the trial to court the void. motion, entered the order: " M o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 6 [ , Ala. R. C i v . P . , ] f i l e d b y A r c h e r W e s t e r n ... i s hereby g r a n t e d . [S]ummary judgment [ i s ] e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t s , d i s m i s s i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. E a c h p a r t y t o b e a r i t s own c o s t s . " On October pursuant vacate to Rule 21, 2008, Benise-Dowling 5 9 , A l a . R. t h e summary j u d g m e n t . C i v . P., In that argued v a r i o u s s u b s t a n t i v e reasons summary judgment alternative, amend the had Benise-Dowling summary dismissing prejudice to the rights brief other i n opposition motion, asked to a amend, granted. the t r i a l specify In the court to a l t e r or that claims Archer to Benise-Dowling's 4 or Benise-Dowling the was of [Benise-Dowling] to f i l e Alabama." motion f o r i t s contention that the Benise-Dowling's than to alter, improperly judgment judgment jurisdiction been filed Western motion summary "without suit in a filed t o amend. a 1080252 On November granting as dismissed an 2008, Benise-Dowling's insofar file 14, i t sought without action same d a y , the a the trial motion to entered alter, amend, clarification prejudice to court that the other entered the an or vacate were request than Alabama. following order claims Benise-Dowling's in a jurisdiction trial court On to the order: " M o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 6 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . , ] f i l e d b y A r c h e r W e s t e r n ... i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d . Summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t s , d i s m i s s i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t them without p r e j u d i c e , except to the filing i n the S t a t e of A l a b a m a o f a s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n on t h e same c l a i m s . E a c h p a r t y t o b e a r i t s own costs." On November judgment as so 14, 2008, Archer Western appealed from the amended. Analysis The court single erred j u d g m e n t was State in issue in amending "without of Alabama of this appeal its judgment prejudice, a subsequent except is whether to specify to the a c t i o n on the the that filing same trial in the the claims." 4 C o n t r a r y to Benise-Dowling's arguments, § 10-2B-15.02(a), Ala. Code 1975, does not p r e c l u d e the c o u r t s of t h i s state from exercising jurisdiction over actions brought by u n a u t h o r i z e d f o r e i g n e n t i t i e s t r a n s a c t i n g business i n Alabama for the purpose of enforcing their contracts. See § 1 0 - 2 B - 1 5 . 0 2 ( a ) , A l a . C o d e 1975 ( " A l l c o n t r a c t s or agreements made o r e n t e r e d i n t o i n t h i s s t a t e b y f o r e i g n corporations p r i o r to o b t a i n i n g a c e r t i f i c a t e of a u t h o r i t y to transact 4 5 1080252 More s p e c i f i c a l l y , trial court "without court's case. erred the we erred prejudice" are c a l l e d upon to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r in determining outside Alabama; judgment i n Alabama i s not Archer that W e s t e r n m a k e s no the the effect that i n dismissing Benise-Dowling's claims filing of another action on judgment of properly before argument the the the the us in trial was trial this court with prejudice same c l a i m s in to Alabama. b u s i n e s s i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l be h e l d v o i d a t t h e a c t i o n o f t h e f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n . " (emphasis added)); G u l f Beach H o t e l , I n c . v . S t a t e e x r e l . W h e t s t o n e , 935 So. 2d 1 1 7 7 , 1182 (Ala. 2006) ("Where 'the trial court ha[s] no subject-matter jurisdiction, [ i t h a s ] no a l t e r n a t i v e but to dismiss the action.'... '"Any other a c t i o n taken by a court lacking subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i s n u l l and v o i d . " ' " (quoting o t h e r c a s e s ) ) ; M c W h o r t e r v. S t a t e Bd. of R e g i s t r a t i o n f o r P r o f ' l E n g ' r s & L a n d S u r v e y o r s ex r e l . B a x l e y , 359 So. 2d 7 6 9 , 771 (Ala. 1978) ("In arriving at a determination of legislative i n t e n t , the e n t i r e Act m u s t be examined and c o n s t r u e d as a w h o l e , a n d , i f p o s s i b l e , e v e r y w o r d i n i t g i v e n effect." ( c i t i n g T i l l m a n v . S i b b l e s , 341 So. 2 d 686 (Ala. 1977)). A l s o c o n t r a r y t o B e n i s e - D o w l i n g ' s a r g u m e n t s , § 34-8-1 e t seq., A l a . Code 1975, does not p r e c l u d e the c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e from e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s a c t i o n . BeniseD o w l i n g p o i n t s t o no p r o v i s i o n i n § 3 4 - 8 - 1 e t s e q . , o r t o a n y o t h e r law, t h a t would d e p r i v e Alabama c o u r t s of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d we h a v e f o u n d no s u c h l a w . See A l a . C o n s t . 1901, A r t . V I , § 142(b) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e " s h a l l e x e r c i s e general j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l cases except as may otherwise be provided by law" (emphasis a d d e d ) ) ; see a l s o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ("The Supreme Court shall have authority [t]o exercise appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the state, under such r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s as a r e p r e s c r i b e d b y l a w "). 6 1080252 Moreover, Benise-Dowling summary j u d g m e n t . expressly In requested did fact, the not [Benise-Dowling] trial court suit and Alabama" (emphasis added), relief. See Farm Mut. Ala. 413, avail 418, 304 himself court; that Express, (1971), 291, and 2d the jurisdictions offer competing to whether City statutes, entered the in judgment v. which other than that 293 party may not has led the he 646, Trucking rights Humphres, (citing Ala. to Dixie 244 Highway So. Serv., 2d 591 275 Ala. (1963))). of the trial court's judgment than Alabama, the p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e . regarding public policies with However, the They a l s o p r e s s Alabama accordance jurisdictions. amend granted court Co. error." 286 arguments the trial into to p r e j u d i c e to the (1974)("[A] Ry., v a r i o u s Alabama s t a t u t e s . as 577 amended motion amend t h e Ins. Magic effect other Auto. invited Southern 306 the 573, the in a jurisdiction i f any, Thompson v. So. to v. 2d error, is called Inc. 154 As of So. to "without to f i l e State from Benise-Dowling's s p e c i f y t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was of appeal the Legislature underlying them to be intended them, and followed extraterritorial 7 They construction competing in of theories for those judgments in effect other of an 1080252 Alabama court's statutes, policy the of judgment is not determined Alabama. to what e f f e c t and laws of Co., 448 U.S. the power State's very our Alabama's legislature State. See 271, and Clause and i t was v. i n the other Constitution 424-25 of prevent. See the the Nevada the Gas Light ("To vest of risks i n t e r e s t s of Full v. judgments effect itself a the other F a i t h and Credit [United States] p r o v i s i o n s of A r t . IV of the to jurisdictions opinion) State courts Hall, 440 U.S. 410, [(1979)]."). Rather, judgment the e f f e c t another j u r i s d i c t i o n in this case public policy, sister federal purpose its Washington extraterritorial judgments the other (plurality the and must g i v e Thomas (1980) determining laws that our jurisdictions k i n d o f p a r o c h i a l e n t r e n c h m e n t on States and those 261, of own Alabama i n t e n t of the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e , or the p u b l i c s i m p l y do n o t h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i r e c t as by law. and, states, 5 i s determined Under by i f that the these by other United principles jurisdiction States principles ought to g i v e and of the comity i s one of Constitution and authorities, the S e e U.S. C o n s t . , A r t . IV, § 1 ( " F u l l F a i t h and C r e d i t s h a l l be g i v e n i n e a c h S t a t e t o t h e p u b l i c A c t s , R e c o r d s , a n d j u d i c i a l Proceedings o f e v e r y o t h e r S t a t e . And t h e C o n g r e s s may b y g e n e r a l L a w s p r e s c r i b e t h e M a n n e r i n w h i c h s u c h A c t s , 5 8 1080252 power of Alabama Alabama judgment prescribe Thomas, faith an the court is limited effects 448 U.S. to of a t 271 determine solely that ("[I]n to judgment effect, the effect of an the authority to i n our by v i r t u e own State. of the full and c r e d i t o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s , a S t a t e i s permitted to determine j u d g m e n t ; b u t i t may effect only do s o i n d i r e c t l y of i t s judgments w i t h i n the S t a t e . " Therefore, relief the e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l that the t r i a l i n amending i t s o r d e r , was b e y o n d of i t s by p r e s c r i b i n g t h e (emphasis the t r i a l i t s authority to grant. court exceeded i t s subject-matter effect added)). court I n so granted doing, jurisdiction. Ex Records and P r o c e e d i n g s shall be p r o v e d , and t h e E f f e c t t h e r e o f . " ) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ( d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d a c t s and judgments o f any s t a t e " s h a l l have t h e same f u l l f a i t h a n d c r e d i t i n e v e r y c o u r t w i t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ... a s t h e y h a v e b y l a w o r u s a g e i n t h e c o u r t s o f s u c h S t a t e ... f r o m w h i c h t h e y a r e t a k e n " ) ; B a k e r v . G e n e r a l M o t o r s Corp. 522 U.S. 2 2 2 , 2 3 3 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ("A c o u r t may b e g u i d e d b y t h e forum State's 'public policy' i n determining the law a p p l i c a b l e t o a c o n t r o v e r s y . S e e N e v a d a v . H a l l , 440 U.S. 4 1 0 , 421-24 (1979). B u t o u r d e c i s i o n s s u p p o r t no r o v i n g ' p u b l i c p o l i c y e x c e p t i o n ' t o t h e f u l l f a i t h a n d c r e d i t due j u d g m e n t s . " (citing Estin v. E s t i n , 334 U.S. 5 4 1 , 546 (1948); and Fauntleroy v . Lum, 210 U.S. 2 3 0 , 237 ( 1 9 0 8 ) ) ) ; M a r t i n v . R o b b i n s , 628 S o . 2 d 6 1 4 , 618 ( A l a . 1 993) ("The d o c t r i n e o f c o m i t y i s ... a p r i n c i p l e o f c o u r t e s y b y w h i c h t h e c o u r t s o f one j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e l a w s a n d j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s o f a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n m e r e l y out o f d e f e r e n c e and r e s p e c t . " ( c i t i n g S t a t e e x r e l . S p e e r v . H a y n e s , 392 S o . 2 d 1183 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) ) ) . 9 1080252 parte Culbreth 966 ("'Jurisdiction issue a "[a] is decree." properly So. court's ... we [requisite] In matters by the power trial ... Seymour, and 946 of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r the 536, Rather, 2008); and Ex Smith, ("[I]t i s the parte duty matter v. of an 438 So. 271 ex mero Ala. 687, we So. 2d 766, the authority....'" (Ala. are are 3d or claim had limited o b l i g a t e d to 631, 768 2006))). not jurisdiction appellate court jurisdiction Miller, 12 we case ...] court 538 jurisdiction, Williams v. Huntsville 2d 2006) subject-matter statutory So. a [a trial subject-matter Crutcher subject the of See decide whether absence motu. (Ala. court's whether arguments of the p a r t i e s . address to the ask parte 911-12 deciding constitutional ( q u o t i n g Ex 910, In challenges jurisdiction, 2d ex mero 635 (Ala. (Ala. 1983) to consider lack of motu." (citing City of 688, 127 So. 2d 606, 608 (1958))). Because amending to the trial i t s judgment amend t o p r o v i d e Benise-Dowling's other than exceeded i n response we to bring reverse 10 its jurisdiction to Benise-Dowling's t h a t i t s j u d g m e n t was right Alabama, court an the without action in a amended in motion prejudice to jurisdiction judgment of the 1080252 trial 635 court and ("'[I]t court to would without wholly 362, case. a in usurpation matter be and over i t s decrees which and So. i t H e n r y , 221 as at a has thereto judgments 3d for oppression is a universal principle, court remand, and r e i n s t a t e d on R E V E R S E D AND Stuart, is the directed court's to no would would o l d as A l a . 254, and vacate original be the law 256, 128 its amended summary judgment remand. REMANDED. Smith, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, concur. Lyons and 12 (1930))). trial j u d g m e n t on Crutcher, i t s pronouncements i n respect force, 364 See to ( q u o t i n g W i l k i n s o n v. The should and v o i d . This itself.'" So. amount interfere jurisdiction, be remand the Woodall, JJ., dissent. 11 and Shaw, JJ., 1080252 WOODALL, J u s t i c e The t r i a l action. (dissenting). c o u r t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r I t s amended judgment, merely purported to enforce by [the] "dismissing prejudice] to subsequent action amended the judgment, claims against entered in claims against in the [Archer State t h e same c l a i m s . " i n a l l other [Archer of respects, Western] without was So. 3d a t Instead, the However, i t appears recognized to . to me For holding its the that outside of Alabama and what effect, that file i f any, [the] The the judgment. properly other court limited i n which s u i t would have t o d e c i d e to give the the court trial any a Alabama." t h a t t h e b i n d i n g e f f e c t o f i t s j u d g m e n t was courts underlying that of "determin[ation] I do n o t s o c o n s t r u e Benise-Dowling might l a t e r itself prejudice' with prejudice." that 'without 1975, Alabama "dismiss[ed] t h i s l a t t e r p h r a s e t o be a judgment 2008, Western I t i s true majority construes the November § 1 0 - 2 B - 1 5 . 0 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code filing on j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s judgment and for the statute. these that reasons, "the t r i a l authority to grant." I cannot court agree granted So. 3d a t 12 with relief . the that majority's was beyond I would a f f i r m the 1080252 judgment of the trial court. dissent. Lyons, J., concurs. 13 Therefore, I respectfully

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.