Limestone Creek Developers, LLC v. Trapp

107 So. 3d 189 (Ala. 2012) · Supreme Court of Alabama · August 17, 2012

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a dispute over a contract to purchase lots in a proposed subdivision. The court held that the contract was void because it violated Madison County Subdivision Regulations requiring approval of a proposed plat before lots could be sold for purposes of creating or establishing a subdivision. Because the contract was illegal, the plaintiff could not recover for breach of contract or related claims dependent on that contract.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the Court
Stuart, Justice; Malone, C.J.; Parker, J.; Shaw, J.; Stuart, J.; Wise, J.
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Decision date
August 17, 2012
Procedural posture
The plaintiff appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in an action involving breach of contract, fraud, specific performance, damages, and related claims.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The appellate court applies the same standard as the trial court, determining whether the movant made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Precedential value
Published Alabama Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Limestone Creek Developers, LLC v. Stuart Trapp, Kyvest, Ltd., Redesign, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

breach of contractreal estatestatutory interpretationcontractsremedies

Practice areas

Contract lawReal estate lawMunicipal lawRemedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the contract for Trapp's purchase of lots in the proposed Heritage Landings subdivision violated Alabama Code § 11-24-2(a).
  2. Whether the contract violated § 1.2.3 of the Madison County Subdivision Regulations.
  3. Whether the contract was void and therefore incapable of supporting the plaintiff's breach-of-contract and dependent claims.
  4. Whether summary judgment for the defendants was proper.

Holdings

  1. The court declined to decide whether Trapp was part of 'the public' under § 11-24-2(a), because the contract was independently void under the Madison County Subdivision Regulations.
  2. The contract violated § 1.2.3 because it required Limestone Creek Developers to sell lots to Trapp before the proposed plat for Heritage Landings had been approved.
  3. A court may not enforce a contract that violates applicable law, and claims dependent on that contract fail.

Key quotations

“Accordingly, because the contract LCD entered into required LCD to sell lots to Trapp before the proposed plat for Heritage Landings was approved, that contract was in violation of § 1.2.3 of the MCSR.” (193)
“The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.” (194)

Factual background

Limestone Creek Developers acquired approximately 28 acres and developed the property into the proposed 51-lot Heritage Landings subdivision. On March 7, 2008, Stuart Trapp agreed to purchase all 51 lots from Limestone Creek Developers, with staged purchases beginning after initial development. After initial development was completed, Trapp declined to finalize the purchases, citing economic conditions affecting his home-building business. The contract was entered before the proposed subdivision plat had been approved as required by the Madison County Subdivision Regulations.

Procedural history

Limestone Creek Developers, LLC, sued Stuart Trapp after he failed to close on a contract to purchase lots in the Heritage Landings subdivision and later amended its complaint to add Kyvest, Ltd., and Redesign, Inc., under an alter-ego theory. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Madison Circuit Court held that the contract violated Alabama Code § 11-24-2(a), declared it void, and entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, holding that the contract was void because it violated § 1.2.3 of the Madison County Subdivision Regulations.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Alabama Supreme Court