This summary is based on the Supreme Court of Alabama’s published decision in Huntsville Design and Construction, Inc. v. Linda Morard and Oliver Augustus Morard III, filed November 13, 2026.

Huntsville Design and Construction, Inc. (HDC) filed suit in Madison Circuit Court alleging breach of contracts and other related claims against Linda Morard, Oliver Augustus Morard III, CAM, LLC (CAM), David P. Bristol, and Acquisition Integration, LLC (AI). The dispute centered on construction work performed at property located at 146 Jim Harding Way in Huntsville, Alabama. HDC entered into two contracts: one with the CAM defendants around August 31, 2022, and another with the AI defendants around December 9, 2022. HDC claimed to have completed all contractual terms but reported nonpayment by the AI defendants, with an outstanding balance of $305,019.

Key to HDC’s claims against Linda and Oliver was an alleged oral promise by Linda that she would pay any outstanding amounts owed under the AI contract if Bristol and AI defaulted on payment, a promise which HDC claimed induced it to enter the AI contract. This formed the basis for claims including breach of express/implied contract, fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation, bad faith, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and suppression.

The CAM defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds for lacking a writing supporting the alleged promise to pay the debts of AI and Bristol. The trial court ordered HDC to produce a writing evidencing such a promise and, upon failure to do so, dismissed the claims against Linda and Oliver. HDC moved to alter or amend this dismissal and to certify the ruling as final under Rule 54(b). The trial court granted the certification, enabling immediate appeal of the dismissal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama evaluated whether the Rule 54(b) certification was proper and whether the dismissed claims were indeed final judgments. The court emphasized its duty to scrutinize Rule 54(b) certifications and noted that appellate review of partial final judgments is disfavored, especially where remaining claims are closely intertwined with the dismissed claims. The court found that HDC’s claims against CAM and claims against Linda and Oliver arose from substantially the same operative facts and were so intertwined that separate adjudication risked inconsistent results.

Accordingly, the Court held the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying a final judgment and dismissed HDC’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As stated in the opinion:

“The trial court exceeded its discretion when it certified its order dismissing the claims against Linda and Oliver as a final judgment.”

The opinion includes a dissent asserting that certification was proper and that the trial court erred in dismissing claims on Statute of Frauds grounds at the pleading stage. The dissent argued HDC adequately alleged an “original agreement” exception to the Statute of Frauds, under which the promise to pay was made primarily for the promisor’s own economic benefit. The dissent would have remanded for further proceedings. However, the majority did not address the substantive merits of the Statute of Frauds issue, limiting its decision to dismissing the appeal for jurisdictional reasons.

Editorial: Potential Impact

This decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama clarifies the court’s strict scrutiny of Rule 54(b) certifications, especially where claims against different defendants are factually intertwined. The court’s dismissal signals a reluctance to permit piecemeal appeals that may result in duplicative litigation or inconsistent adjudications. Practitioners and litigants may find this ruling underscores the importance of securing final judgments on all related claims before appealing, potentially impacting case management strategies in complex multi-party contract disputes.

Although the case involved allegations of contracts related to property improvements, the court’s emphasis on procedural finality and jurisdiction may have broader implications across civil litigation areas, including those involving technology or AI-related services where multiple parties and contracts often intersect.

The dissent’s articulation of the “original agreement” exception to the Statute of Frauds highlights a contested issue that could affect future construction or contract disputes concerning oral promises to pay another’s debt. However, since the majority did not reach the substantive merits, this decision does not establish binding precedent regarding the Statute of Frauds or related doctrines. Parties involved in similar facts may await further rulings to clarify these substantive questions.

Source: Read the full decision on CourtListener

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama | Docket: SC-2026-0120 | Date filed: 2026-11-13

This article was generated automatically from a public court record and is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Refer to the linked source document for the authoritative text of the decision.