Page 1207
Appeal
from Etowah Circuit Court (CV-16-900063)
Joshua
B. Sullivan of Knowles & Sullivan, LLC, Gadsden, for
appellant.
William H. Morrow , Jonathan R. Little , and Ivan B. Cooper
of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham; and
F. Michael Haney , Gadsden, for appellee.
MOORE,
Judge.
Joseph
Machen, individually and doing business as Complete Roofing
Exterior ("Machen"), appeals from a judgment of the
Etowah Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor
of SCI Funeral Services, LLC, doing business as
Collier-Butler Funeral Home ("SCI"). We dismiss the
appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment.
Procedural
History
On
January 29, 2016, Machen filed a complaint against SCI,
asserting, among other things, that SCI had contracted with
Machen to install a metal roof "and [for] other
carpentry services"; that, pursuant to the written
contract between the parties, Machen was to be paid $63,900;
that Machen had performed the work and services at SCI's
business until May 2010, at which time Machen discontinued
his work and services because of a payment dispute; and that
Machen had not been paid for the work that he had performed.
Machen asserted claims against SCI of "open
account," "stated account," "work and
services provided," breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation. SCI filed an
answer to the complaint on December 19, 2016.
On
April 19, 2018, SCI filed a motion for a summary judgment,
asserting that it was entitled to a summary judgment on all
of Machen's claims because Machen was not a licensed
contractor at the time he entered into the contract to
perform work for SCI. Machen filed an opposition to SCI's
motion for a summary judgment on July 13, 2018. Machen
asserted in his opposition, among other things, that SCI had
represented to Machen that Machen would be paid in three
installments, with the first
Page 1208
payment of $21,000 being due "at the beginning";
that Machen had relied on that promise and began ordering
materials and supplies needed for him to perform the job for
SCI; that SCI had given to Machen a check in the amount of
$21,000 that was later returned for insufficient funds; that
the initial payment was never reissued by SCI to Machen; that
Machen had discontinued working on the project based on the
failure of SCI to make the initial payment as agreed upon;
that SCI had issued a check to Machen on November 2, 2009, in
the amount of $21,666.66 and another check to Machen on July
3, 2010, in the amount of $7,020.30; that SCI had indicated
that those funds had been paid to the Alabama State Treasurer
as unclaimed funds; that, upon inquiry, Machen was informed
that those funds had not been paid to the Alabama State
Treasurer; and that SCI had informed Machen that the funds
were being held for the benefit of Machen in an escheatment
account. Machen argued that SCI was estopped from relying on
the fact that Machen was unlicensed because, he said, SCI had
been aware of that fact from the outset of their contract.
Machen also argued that, even if he is prevented from
recovering pursuant to the contract, he is entitled to the
funds being held in SCI's escheatment account and that
his fraudulent-misrepresentation claim with regard to
SCI's initial payment to Machen is not reliant on the
contract. SCI filed a reply to Machen's opposition on
July 16, 2018.
On July
19, 2018, the trial court entered a judgment that states, in
pertinent part:
"There being no genuine issue as to any material fact
put before the Court, [SCI] is hereby entitled to, and IS
GRANTED, a partial judgment as a matter of law on part of
[Machen's] claims.
"Therefore, summary judgment is granted as to all claims
made by [Machen] that are in addition to the amount he claims
may be escheated, paid to a third entity, or paid by [SCI]
but refused due to insufficient funds. Only those claims,
totaling $28,000, remain.
"This is an adjudication as to fewer than all claims;
therefore, this is an express determination that there is no
just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of
judgment ...