Franklin Structures, LLC v. Williams, [Ms. SC-2024-0586, Aug. 29, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Mendheim, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and McCool, JJ., concur) reverses the Baldwin Circuit Court’s order denying in part Franklin Structures, LLC’s (“Franklin”) motion to compel arbitration of all claims asserted by Karl and Tonya Williams concerning defects in a modular home they purchased from Franklin. The provision was contained in a Homeowner’s Manual issued by Franklin. Ms. *7.
The Court concludes that even though they did not sign the manual, the Williamses were bound by the provision requiring mandatory mediation and if unsuccessful, binding arbitration. The Court cites evidence submitted by Franklin “showing that the Williamses accepted warranty services from Franklin on at least three separate occasions,” Ms. *21, and also noted that the Williamses “signed the sales contract, and they each initialed the page that contained information about the warranty on their home. Thus, when the Williamses contacted Franklin to perform work on the home, they were on notice that it was work performed under the warranty Franklin provided – a warranty that contained an arbitration provision.” Ms. *22. “[B]ecause the Williamses accepted warranty services from Franklin and they have asserted express-warranty claims against Franklin, they are contractually bound by the arbitration provision contained in the warranty portion of the homeowner’s manual.” Ms. *27, citing Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard, 772 So. 2d 1131, 1134-35 (Ala. 2000)(a party cannot simultaneously claim the benefits of a contract and repudiate its burdens and conditions).