The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Huntsville Design and Construction, Inc. (HDC) against Linda Morard and Oliver Augustus Morard III on November 13, 2026. The court ruled that the trial court's dismissal of HDC's claims was not a final judgment, thus preventing HDC from appealing. This decision affects HDC, which sought to recover over $300,000 in unpaid construction fees.

The case arose from a construction contract dispute involving two agreements related to a property located at 146 Jim Harding Way in Huntsville. HDC alleged that it had entered into contracts with both the Morards and other defendants for construction work. When the second group of defendants failed to pay, HDC sought to hold the Morards liable based on claims of misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Background

HDC filed its lawsuit on April 8, 2025, against Linda and Oliver Morard, along with other parties, alleging that they owned the property where the construction took place. The company claimed it had fulfilled its obligations under the contracts but was owed $305,019 due to non-payment by the AI defendants, who were supposed to purchase the property.

According to HDC, Linda Morard had assured them that she would pay the outstanding amounts if the AI defendants failed to do so. However, after the AI defendants defaulted on their payments, HDC filed a mechanic's lien on the property. The Morards subsequently sold the property without paying HDC, prompting the lawsuit.

The Ruling

The trial court dismissed HDC's claims against Linda and Oliver Morard on November 4, 2025, ruling that the claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds. This statute requires certain promises, including those to pay the debts of others, to be in writing. The court found that HDC failed to produce any written evidence of Linda's promise to pay the AI defendants' debt.

Justice Jay Wise stated in the court's opinion, "the statute of frauds applies in this case as to the Morards versus [HDC], as [HDC] was given several months to produce a writing binding those Defendants to the Bristol debt to substantiate its claim of obligation and it has failed." The court ultimately dismissed the appeal because it determined that the trial court's order was not a final judgment.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for HDC, which now faces challenges in recovering the funds owed for its construction work. The dismissal means that HDC cannot pursue its claims against the Morards in the higher court unless the trial court's decision is reversed or modified in future proceedings.

The court's decision also underscores the importance of written agreements in business transactions, particularly when it comes to promises to pay another party's debts. This case highlights the necessity for construction companies and contractors to secure written commitments to avoid similar disputes in the future.

What's Next

HDC has limited options for appeal at this stage, as the court dismissed the appeal based on procedural grounds. There may be potential for HDC to pursue other claims against the remaining defendants, but those details were not available in the court filing.