Ex Parte Weeks

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 ...