Universal Development Corp. v. Dellinger; Hatti Group RE, LLC, et al. v. Dellinger; Hatti Group RE, LLC, et al. v. Dellinger, [Ms. SC-2023-0645; SC-2023-0666; SC-2023-0705, Sep. 20, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). In consolidated appeals involving a complex construction dispute, the Court (Mendheim, J.; Shaw and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Bryan, J., concurs specially, which Parker, C.J., joins) dismisses appeals filed by Harsha Hatti (“Hatti”) from judgments entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court against him and in favor of Robbie Dellinger following a jury trial of consolidated cases that involved claims asserted by Hatti, the Hatti Group, and Dellinger. The Court reverses the judgment entered in favor of Dellinger against Universal Development Corporation (“Universal”).
The Court first holds “Hatti’s appeal number SC-2023-0666 must be dismissed because no judgment in favor of Dellinger and adverse to Hatti was entered in Hatti v. Universal.” Ms. *43. The Court explains “Hatti did not gain the right to appeal in Hatti v. Universal simply because that case was consolidated with Dellinger v. Hatti. The cases remained separate and distinct despite their consolidation, as did the rights to appeal in each case.” Ibid.
The Court further concludes that Hatti’s appeal of the June 20, 2023 judgment in Dellinger v. Hatti, appeal number SC-2023-0705, was untimely and due to be dismissed. Hatti argued his appeal was timely because of an August 15, 2023 Amended Final Order that included prejudgment interest on Dellinger’s breach-of-contract claim. The Court rejects this argument and explains “[t]he parties had simply agreed before the jury began deliberating that 6% interest would be added to any jury award for breach of contract. ... but the trial court, by its own admission in its June 20, 2023, order, had simply failed to add prejudgment interest to the jury’s damages award. That is precisely the situation under which Rule 60(a) [Ala. R. Civ. P] allows a correction of the judgment amount.” Ms. *49.
The Court reiterates “[t]he effect of a Rule 60(a) amendment is a correction of the original judgment to reflect the original intention of the trial court. There was no change in the actual judgment. The amendment relates back to the [date of the] original judgment and becomes a part of it.” Bergen-Patterson, Inc. v. Naylor, 701 So. 2d 826, 829 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). Therefore, the date of the final judgment was June 20, 2023. Hatti’s postjudgment motion was filed more than 30 days after that date, and so it did not enlarge the time for filing an appeal.” Ms. *51.
On Universal’s appeal of the judgment against it on Dellinger’s breach of contract cross claim against it in Hatti v. Universal, the Court holds Dellinger’s lack of the general contractor’s license required by § 34-8-1(a), Ala. Code 1975 was fatal to his breach of contract claim against Universal:
Because Dellinger performed work as a general contractor for Hatti under the PSA [Personal Services Agreement], but Dellinger admittedly did not have a general contractor’s license, the PSA contract is void as a violation of public policy. Furthermore, Dellinger’s claim against Universal was based on the premise that he was owed payments under the PSA and that Universal would support Dellinger in seeking to recover those payments. However, because the PSA is void as a matter of public policy, Dellinger did not have a valid legal claim against Universal because Universal could not have a legal obligation to support Dellinger in seeking payments on an unenforceable contract. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted Universal’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, and it should have dismissed Dellinger’s breach-of-contract claim against Universal before it was submitted to the jury. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a judgment for Universal.
Ms. **64-65.