EX PARTE Barton J. WEEKS and Weeks Engineering Construction and Consulting, LLC (In re: Rustic Mountain Restoration, LLC
v.
Barton J. Weeks and Weeks Engineering Construction and Consulting, LLC).
Page 148
(Shelby Circuit Court, CV-18-900066)
Angela
C. Shields of Smith, Spires, Peddy, Hamilton & Coleman,
PC, Birmingham, for petitioners.
M.
Brandon Walker of Walker McMullan, LLC, Birmingham, for
respondent.
EDWARDS,
Judge.
Barton
J. Weeks ("Weeks") and Weeks Engineering
Construction and Consulting, LLC ("WECC"), seek a
writ of mandamus directing the Shelby Circuit Court
("the trial court") to vacate its order denying
their motion for a summary judgment on the ground that the
trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, based on a
purported lack of standing, over an action commenced by
Rustic Mountain Restoration, LLC ("RMR"), against
Weeks and WECC and to enter an order granting their motion.
Facts
and Procedural History
The
dispute arises from a purported roofing agreement between
Weeks and
Page 149
RMR, Rustic Mountain Roof & Restoration, or Rustic
Mountain Roof & Restoration, LLC ("RMRR"), all
of which are apparently owned by Andrew Davenport. Rustic
Mountain Roof & Restoration and RMRR are sometimes
hereinafter referred to collectively as "the affiliated
entities." Pursuant to the purported roofing agreement,
RMR or one of the affiliated entities was to roof a house
owned by Weeks ("the Weeks property") and located
in Shelby County.[1] The price for the roofing work on the
Weeks property was $15,640.
On
January 5, 2018, Rustic Mountain Roof & Restoration filed
a mechanic's and materialman's lien in the Shelby
Probate Court against the Weeks property. The lien form was
executed by Davenport, as owner, and avers that Rustic
Mountain Roof & Restoration entered into a written
agreement with Weeks to roof the Weeks property for $15,640,
that Rustic Mountain Roof & Restoration completed that
work, and that it had not been paid.
On
January 23, 2018, RMR filed a complaint in the trial court
against Weeks and WECC, each of which is described as
"Defendant." RMR alleged that, "[o]n or about
October 16, 2017, Defendant hired [RMR] to [ ]roof a house
owned by Defendant Weeks" at an "agreed upon price
... [of] $15,640," that "[w]ork on the roof began
on November 20, 2017, and was completed on December 7,
2017," and that "Defendant has refused to pay [RMR]
for the materials supplied and work performed."
RMR's complaint included claims against Weeks and WECC
for alleged breach of contract and for work and labor
performed. RMR requested a judgment against Weeks and WECC
for $15,640.
Weeks
and WECC filed an answer denying the pertinent allegations of
the complaint, and Weeks filed a counterclaim alleging that
WECC had no ownership interest in the Weeks property and that
Weeks had not entered into any agreement with RMR. Instead,
according to Weeks, he had entered into an agreement with one
of the affiliated entities for the roofing of the Weeks
property.[2] Weeks alleged that the affiliated
entities appeared to be doing business under the name of RMR,
that the roof at issue had not been properly installed, and
that damage had been caused to the Weeks property by one of
the affiliated entities. Weeks also alleged that neither RMR
nor either of the affiliated entities possessed a license
from the State Home Builders Licensure Board. See Ala. Code
1975, § 34-14A-3. Weeks asserted claims against RMR
alleging breach of the contract by one of the affiliated
entities, various forms of negligence,
misrepresentation/fraud, breach of warranty, and slander of
title.
On
February 18, 2019, Weeks and WECC filed a motion for a
summary judgment regarding RMR's claims.[3] In pertinent
part, Weeks and WECC contended that they had not entered into
an agreement with RMR but that, even if they had ...