Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ. v. American/Owens, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1986 |
| Citation | 486 So.2d 405 |
| Parties | 32 Ed. Law Rep. 371 TUSCALOOSA CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. AMERICAN/OWENS, INC. 84-1100. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John A. Owens and Michael S. Burroughs, of Phelps, Owens, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Wilbor J. Hust, Jr., of Zeanah & Hust, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
The Tuscaloosa City Board of Education appeals from a judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
On May 17, 1984, the Tuscaloosa City Board of Education and American/Owens, Inc., entered into a contract under which American/Owens agreed to remove asbestos-containing material from buildings owned by the Board. American/Owens also agreed to accept the amount specified in the contract as full consideration for its work, subject only to certain additions and deductions provided for in the contract.
By the following provision the parties agreed to submit certain disputes for resolution by the director of the State Building Commission:
After beginning the work, American/Owens reported to the Board that the quantity of asbestos to be removed from the buildings exceeded the amount it expected to find based on drawings and specifications made by the architect employed by the Board and that this work would be done as an extra item not within the contract. The Board refused to pay for the extra work and American/Owens agreed to finish the work under protest and then seek a resolution of the controversy by the director.
The Board appeared before the director in a hearing on November 20, 1984, in which it argued that the director lacked jurisdiction to resolve the controversy between the parties. The director entered an order on November 28, 1984, requiring payment of the additional amount demanded by American/Owens.
On January 8, 1985, the Board filed an action for a declaratory judgment, seeking a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract. The complaint alleged that the dispute was not the kind of controversy subject to resolution by the director, and, thus, that he lacked jurisdiction to enter an award. American/Owens did not file an answer to the complaint, but filed a motion seeking dismissal of the complaint, or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings.
The trial court found that the parties had agreed to submit the payment controversy to arbitration, that the director decided a question concerning the interpretation or meaning of the contract, and that his decision was binding on the parties. In the alternative, the trial court found that the Board had not properly appealed the director's decision.
The Board argues that the judgment on the pleadings should have been denied because an answer was not filed by American/Owens. A motion is considered according to its substance, not its label. Den-Tal-Eze Mfg. Co. v. Gosa, 388 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); Rule 7, A.R.Civ.P. Therefore, the motion for judgment on the pleadings may be treated as an answer and the motion may properly be considered.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when the material facts are not in dispute. McCullough v. Alabama By-Products Corp., 343 So.2d 508 (Ala.1977). Any exhibits attached to a pleading are considered a part of the contents of the pleading. The Board's complaint merely alleged that a justiciable controversy existed. American/Owens attached as exhibits copies of several documents, including the contract between the Board and American/Owens, letters written by American/Owens concerning the dispute, and the decision of the arbitrator. These exhibits resolve any factual questions raised by the complaint.
The Board asserts that the dispute between it and American/Owens does not involve the interpretation of contract provisions, as provided for in the contract, and therefore, that the arbitrator has no authority to resolve this dispute.
After reviewing the pleadings, including the attached exhibits, we find that the contract contains inconsistent or unclear provisions, which were interpreted by the arbitrator in resolving the dispute.
The contract contained a specific provision in Section 01010, "Scope of the Work,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. Dunn
...that "[a]ny exhibits attached to a pleading are considered a part of the contents of the pleading." Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ. v. American/Owens, Inc., 486 So.2d 405, 407 (Ala.1986); see also McCullough v. Alabama By-Prods. Corp., 343 So.2d 508, 510 (Ala.1977) ("Under Alabama law, an exhi......
-
Ex parte U.S. Gypsum Co.
...motion for a summary judgment, essentially served as the defendant's answer in this case. As we noted in Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ. v. American/Owens, Inc., 486 So.2d 405 (Ala.1986), "[a] motion is considered according to its substance, not its label.... Therefore, [a] motion for judgment......
-
McLEOD v. WHITE
...is, when no substantial prejudice will result-a court may treat a motion as a pleading. See, e.g., Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ. v. American/Owens, Inc., 486 So.2d 405, 406-07 (Ala.1986) (holding that a motion for a judgment on the pleadings could be treated as an answer when the material fa......
-
Patterson v. State, 3 Div. 72
...simply declaring a document to be a motion for new trial does not toll the time for appeal. See Tuscaloosa City Board of Education v. American/Owens, Inc., 486 So.2d 405 (Ala.1986) (a motion is considered according to its substance and not its Rule 13(a)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal ......