Hooks v. Pickens, 2040569.
Citation | 940 So.2d 1029 |
Decision Date | 21 April 2006 |
Docket Number | 2040569. |
Parties | Jimmie Lucile HOOKS v. Theodore PICKENS d/b/a Pickens Home Repair. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert J. Hayes and Heather K. Jackson of Hayes & Swinford, Birmingham, for appellant.
Barry E. Vickery, Birmingham, for appellee.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Kathy Perry Brasfield and Jamie Ayers Durham, asst. attys. gen., amicus curiae Alabama Home Builders Licensure Board, in support of the appellant.
Jimmie Lucile Hooks desired to remodel a portion of her residence. She engaged an architect, George Hunter, Jr., to draw the necessary plans. Hunter suggested to Hooks that she employ Theodore Pickens d/b/a Pickens Home Repair ("Pickens") to complete the remodeling work. Hooks and Pickens entered into a contract for the remodeling work. Ultimately, Hooks became dissatisfied with Pickens's work and she refused to pay him.
Pickens then sued Hooks, alleging breach of contract and seeking $8,685 for labor, materials, and interest. Hooks counterclaimed seeking damages for poor workmanship and specified damages in the amount of $1,900, which she had expended to complete the remodeling work to her satisfaction. Hooks filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing that Pickens, who was not licensed by the Home Builders Licensure Board, had no standing to sue alleging a breach of contract. See Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-14; see generally Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-1 et seq. (). Pickens responded by arguing that he was not required to have a license pursuant to an exemption in the home builders licensure statute applicable to property owners like Hooks who were acting as their own contractors. See Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-6(5). The trial court denied Hooks's summary-judgment motion, and the case proceeded to trial. After the trial, the trial court entered a judgment awarding Pickens $6,785.1 Hooks appeals.2
In 1992, the Alabama Legislature enacted a statutory scheme designed "to regulate the residential home building and remodeling construction industries." See Ala.Code 1975, § 34-14A-1. The home builders licensure statute requires that residential home builders be licensed. § 34-14A-5. A "residential home builder" is defined in the statute as:
"One who constructs a residence or structure for sale or who, for a fixed price, commission, fee, or wage, undertakes or offers to undertake the construction or superintending of the construction, of any residence or structure which is not over three floors in height and which does not have more than four units in an apartment complex, or the repair, improvement, or reimprovement thereof, to be used by another as a residence when the cost of the undertaking exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000)."
§ 34-14A-2(10). The statute, among other things, also created the Home Builders Licensure Board, § 34-14A-3, set certain licensing requirements, §§ 34-14A-5 and -7, provided a procedure for the revocation or suspension of licenses, § 34-14A-8, and established a Homeowner's Recovery Fund, § 34-14A-15. In addition, the home builders licensure statute provides certain penalties for the failure to obtain a license. § 34-14A-14. The statute further provides for exemptions from the requirement that a person performing home building or remodeling be licensed. § 34-14A-6.
In order to determine whether Pickens was properly awarded damages on his breach-of-contract claim, we must construe certain sections of the home builders licensure statute.
Blackmon v. Brazil, 895 So.2d 900, 907 (Ala.2004).
The legislature expressed its intent in enacting the home builders licensure statute in § 34-14A-1, which reads, in part, as follows:
Thus, the purpose behind the licensing requirements of the home builders licensure statute is the protection of the public from "unqualified, incompetent or dishonest home building contractors and remodelers." In furtherance of the protection of the public, the legislature made engaging in the home-building business without a license a Class A misdemeanor. § 34-14A-14. In addition, and in recognition of the "well-established rule that if the purpose of a licensing statute is the regulation of the business licensed and not merely the collection of revenue, a person not licensed cannot enforce a contract for services rendered within the scope of the regulated business," Tucker v. Walker, 293 Ala. 589, 592, 308 So.2d 245, 247 (1975), the legislature made it impossible for an unlicensed home builder to maintain an action to enforce any provision of a contract for home-building services. § 34-14A-15.
However, the legislature determined that certain individuals would not be required to be licensed. Those individuals, as enumerated in § 34-14A-6, are:
Because Pickens does not contest that he is a residential home builder as defined in § 34-14A-2(10), the present case turns primarily on the application two other sections of the home builders licensure statute— §§ 34-14A-14 and 34-14A-6. Hooks argues that, pursuant to § 34-14A-14, Pickens is not entitled to "bring or maintain [an] action to enforce the provisions of [the] contract for residential home building which he ... entered into in violation of this chapter." Pickens, however, contends that, pursuant to the exemption for "[o]wners of property when acting as their own contractor and providing all material supervision themselves," § 34-14A-6(5), he was not required to be licensed; he also...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fausnight v. Perkins
... ... from `unqualified, incompetent or dishonest home building contractors and remodelers.' Hooks v. Pickens, [940 So.2d 1029] (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (quoting Ala.Code § 34-14A-1). The court also ... ...
-
Terrell v. Oak & Alley Homes, LLC
...[that may] provide inadequate, unsafe, or inferior building services." Ala. Code 1975, § 34-14A-1 ; see also Hooks v. Pickens, 940 So. 2d 1029, 1031-32 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). In this case, however, Oak & Alley held a valid homebuilders license, satisfying the regulatory purpose of the Act. ......
-
Rustic Mountain Restoration, LLC v. Barton J. Weeks & Weeks Eng'g Constr. & Consulting, LLC (In re Barton J. Weeks & Weeks Eng'g Constr. & Consulting, LLC)
...3 So. 3d 216, 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). See also King v. Riedl, 58 So. 3d 190, 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ; and Hooks v. Pickens, 940 So. 2d 1029, 1033 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).Regarding the issue of standing, the supreme court has recently and repeatedly clarified that the doctrine of standin......
-
Barrett v. Roman
...regulate the residential home building and remodeling construction industries."§ 34–14A–1, Ala.Code 1975. See also Hooks v. Pickens, 940 So.2d 1029, 1031–32 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (stating that the purpose of the homebuilder-licensing requirements is the protection of the public from unqualifie......