Terrell v. Oak & Alley Homes, LLC
| Decision Date | 15 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2190175 |
| Citation | 334 So.3d 506 |
| Parties | Barbara TERRELL v. OAK & ALLEY HOMES, LLC |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Dwight W. Pridgen, Montgomery, for appellant.
Joseph J. Gallo, Daleville, for appellee.
Barbara Terrell appeals from a judgment of the Dale Circuit Court awarding Oak & Alley Homes, LLC ("Oak & Alley"), $27,037.70 on its claims against Terrell. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In February 2018, Terrell's house was damaged by water in an incident that triggered casualty-insurance coverage. Following the completion of initial cleanup work, Terrell contacted Nicholas Davis, the sole member of Oak & Alley, and requested that he provide her with an estimate to repair her house. In response, Davis visited Terrell's house and, using specialized software utilized in the construction industry for estimating the cost of insurance jobs, generated a 15-page estimate detailing the repair work proposed to be done. Davis estimated that the repair work would cost $64,686.99. At Terrell's request, Davis submitted the estimate to Terrell's insurance company. He did not send a copy of the estimate directly to Terrell, but, on March 12, 2018, he informed her via text message that he had estimated that the proposed repairs would cost "close to $65,000." Terrell sent Davis a text message on March 19, 2018, stating: "You can start work on the house as soon as possible." She followed up on March 23, 2018, with a text message to Davis, stating: Sometime thereafter, Oak & Alley began work on Terrell's house.
On May 22, 2018, Oak & Alley sent Terrell the first of three invoices, setting forth therein current charges of $5,966.60. The first invoice stated that the "contract amount" was $64,686.99. Terrell paid the current charges stated on the first invoice. On August 2, 2018, Oak & Alley sent Terrell a second invoice setting forth current charges of $25,500; that second invoice, like the first invoice, identified the total contract price as $64,686.99. Terrell paid the current charges stated on the second invoice. On October 1, 2018, Oak & Alley sent Terrell a third and final invoice in the amount of $24,820.39.
In response to the third invoice, on or about October 22, 2018, Terrell wrote Davis a letter, which stated, in part:
On October 22, 2018, Davis replied by letter, which stated, in part:
Davis's letter also informed Terrell that he had received two additional invoices from subcontractors and that the outstanding balance for the work completed on her house was $28,597.56. Terrell made no further payments to Oak & Alley.
On February 14, 2019, Oak & Alley initiated its action against Terrell seeking $27,037.70, which Oak & Alley alleged was the unpaid balance for the work it had performed on Terrell's house. In its complaint, Oak & Alley alleged a breach-of-contract claim and a work-and-labor-done claim. Terrell moved for a summary judgment, arguing, in part, that Oak & Alley's claims were barred as a matter of law because, she said, Oak & Alley had failed to enter into a "valid written contract" as required by Ala. Code 1975, § 34-14A-7(f), a portion of the Home Builders Licensure Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 34-14A-1 et seq ("the Act"). The trial court denied Terrell's motion for a summary judgment, and a bench trial on Oak & Alley's claims was conducted on October 22, 2019.
At trial, Davis testified that, at all pertinent times, he and Oak & Alley had held a valid residential-homebuilders license issued by the Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board ("the Board").1 Davis stated that he had previously done a remodeling job for Terrell. Davis testified that, at Terrell's instruction, he had prepared an estimate to repair the damage to Terrell's house; that he had estimated that the necessary repairs would cost $64,686.99; that, at Terrell's request, he had sent that estimate to Terrell's insurer; that he had informed Terrell that the amount of his estimate was "close to $65,000"; and that Terrell had informed him that his proposal had been accepted and requested that he begin performing the contemplated repair work. Copies of the parties' text messages evidencing their exchange, along with the estimate submitted to Terrell's insurer, were admitted into evidence at trial.
Davis testified that, as the repair work had progressed, Terrell had made several changes from the original proposal, some of which had reduced the estimated cost and some of which had entailed extra costs that had not been included in the original estimate. Further, Davis testified that he had encountered unexpected conditions that increased the cost of the work and had caused delay. For example, Davis stated that, during the renovation work, he had discovered water leaking from Terrell's basement wall, which, he claimed, had resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of extra work attempting to locate and repair the problem. Davis testified that, despite some additional charges, the work was completed for less than the original $64,686.99 estimate. He further stated that the amount he had billed to Terrell represented actual work performed by Oak & Alley or its subcontractors at Terrell's house. Davis admitted that there was no formal written contract signed by Terrell related to the remodeling work performed by Oak & Alley, but he contended that their agreement was sufficiently memorialized by the parties' text messages, the written estimate, and the invoices provided to Terrell.
Terrell testified that her insurance policy had provided coverage that, she said, would reimburse her for the cost to restore her house to its condition before the water damage. She stated, however, that she had planned to market her house for sale after completion of the renovation work and, thus, had not intended for the house to be restored to its precise pre-repair condition; rather, she admitted, she had intended to use less expensive materials to restore the house. For example, she noted that she had substituted vinyl flooring for the original oak flooring, painted walls for wallpaper, and a manufactured vanity to replace custom cabinetry. Terrell, nevertheless, stated that she had intended to pay Oak & Alley for the work it completed but opined that the amount billed to her by Oak & Alley had exceeded the value of the labor and materials actually provided by Oak & Alley. Terrell, however, offered no evidence directly relating to the value of the work actually performed by Oak & Alley. Terrell also expressed her displeasure with the length of time it had taken Oak & Alley to complete the restoration work. Terrell testified that Davis had previously completed a smaller job at another house she owned and that she had, therefore, trusted him.
On October 24, 2019, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Oak & Alley and against Terrell, concluding as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial