Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CRM Services, LLC v. Georgia Holding, LLC

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 28, 2019

CRM SERVICES, LLC
v.
GEORGIA HOLDING, LLC.

         Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-16-902073)

          Matt 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.

         MENDHEIM, Justice.

         AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

         See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.

         Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

         Mitchell, J., dissents.

         MITCHELL, Justice (dissenting).

         While I 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.

         Background

         On 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 lien")

Page 739

upon the Towers in the amount of $1,817,655.45 for the "mitigation/construction/renovation/restoration" of the Towers and improvements, "including ... structural drying, daily moisture monitoring, and asbestos abatement."

         Less than five months later, CRM sued Georgia Holding to recover payment under the M& P agreement.[1] 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.