from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-16-902073)
Conn. and Jeff Friedman of Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas &
Bowling, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles K. Hamilton of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP,
Birmingham, for appellee.
Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.
C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and Stewart,
acknowledge that the Alabama General Contractors Practice
Act, § 34-8-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the
AGCPA"), can have severe consequences for those who
perform general contracting work without a license, it is not
clear that the work at issue in this case was, in fact,
general contracting work. Despite being presented with
evidence raising an issue of material fact, the trial court
did not allow the parties to litigate that issue. Instead,
the trial court found dispositive a single item of evidence
that does not resolve the issue at the heart of this dispute.
Because I believe the trial court was wrong to enter a
summary judgment, I respectfully dissent.
October 26, 2015, the Birmingham Building Trade Towers
("the Towers"), which was owned by Georgia Holding,
LLC, suffered fire damage. The following day, Georgia Holding
entered into an agreement with CRM Services, LLC
("CRM"), under which CRM agreed to perform,
according to CRM, "mitigation and preservation services
... to prevent the spread of mold and other microbials"
("the M& P agreement"). According to CRM, it also
provided "asbestos abatement services" for Georgia
Holding under what it claims was a separate agreement
("the purported asbestos agreement"). When Georgia
Holding failed to pay in full for CRM's services, CRM
filed a verified claim of lien ("the verified
upon the Towers in the amount of $1,817,655.45 for the
the Towers and improvements, "including ... structural
drying, daily moisture monitoring, and asbestos
than five months later, CRM sued Georgia Holding to recover
payment under the M& P agreement. CRM attached the verified
lien to its complaint. CRM states in its complaint that it is
not seeking recovery for the work it performed under the
purported asbestos agreement. Georgia Holding, on the other
hand, denies the existence of the purported asbestos