Construction Services, LLC, d/b/a MCA Construction, Inc. v. RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC, Retail Specialists, LLC, and Rodney Barstein, No. SC-2025-0774, 2026 WL 1755510 (Ala. Jun. 18, 2026). The Court (Mendheim, J., Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and McCool, JJ., concur) reverses and remands the Baldwin Circuit Court’s decision, holding a duly licensed contractor, as defined by the Alabama General Contractor Practice Act, § 34-8-1 et seq, is one who possesses a valid general contractors license, and contracts entered into by duly licensed contractors may not be considered null and void based on a lack of specialty classification.
Construction Services, LLC, (“Construction Services”) d/b/a MCA Construction, Inc., a Mississippi corporation previously licensed in Alabama from 2008-2012, obtained an Alabama general contractor’s license in October 2020 based on reciprocity, classified for “Building Construction” (“BC”) with an unlimited bid limit. *2-3.
On February 11, 2021, RAM and MCA entered into a contract for MCA to work on the Amberly Subdivision Phase 1 in Baldwin County wherein MCA would clear the land, construct roadways, and install water and sewer pipes. *3-4. The City Engineer for Robertsdale believed MCA needed both a BC and a “Municipal and Utility” (“MU”) classification to perform this work. *4. William Miller, MCA’s principal, represented to the Board that MCA was in the process of adding that classification, and MCA’s land-disturbance permit was approved on that basis. MCA began work shortly thereafter. *5-6. On April 30, 2021, Miller passed the examination to add the MU classification to MCA’s license, and MCA’s license was amended to reflect both classifications. *6.
RAM and MCA’s relationship broke down, and MCA ceased work on the subdivision. *7. RAM sued MCA for breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and accounting. Id. MCA asserted counterclaims against RAM and brought third-party claims against Retail Specialists and Barstein for unpaid work, uncompensated extra work, and delays. *8.
RAM, Retail Specialists, and Barstein (“the RAM parties”) filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the contract was void because MCA was “an ‘unlicensed’ general contractor at the time it executed the contract on February 11, 2021.” *9. MCA responded that it held a valid BC-classification license at signing and did not perform MU-classified work until after it obtained that classification. *9-10. The circuit court granted RAM’s summary judgment motion on all claims raised by MCA. *10. MCA’s post-judgment motion, supported by new evidence (the City Engineer’s affidavit and the land-disturbance permit), was denied. *11.
After a jurisdictional detour – where the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification of the summary judgment order as final was later held improper by the Court due to the factual overlap between the appealed claims and remaining claims, and that appeal was dismissed (*12-13) – RAM ultimately filed a motion to dismiss all remaining claims without prejudice to force a final, appealable judgment on the licensing question: whether McNairy v. Sugar Creek Resort, Inc., 576 So. 2d 185 (Ala. 1991) (permitting a contractor to seek payment for services where contractor substantially complied with licensing requirements and contract was ratified after licensure) remains good law. *12-14. The circuit court granted the dismissal, denied MCA’s post-judgment motion (wherein MCA raised estoppel based on RAM’s knowledge of the classification issue throughout MCA’s work on the project), and MCA appealed. *14-15.
The Court holds that MCA was functioning as a general contractor pursuant to § 34-8-1 when it entered into the contract. *17. Because the BC and MU classifications overlap in scope, and MCA applied for and obtained the MUC classification prior to performing the work requiring it, MCA was not “unlicensed.” *31-32.
The Court rejects RAM’s argument that a classification gap is equivalent to working without a license (a criminal offense voiding the contract), upholding McNairy, supra, and finding “there is a difference between regulatory exactitude and the application of court-imposed public policy.” *46-47, 50. Exercising public policy to declare a contract void should only be done where the illegality of the contract is clear and to protect the public. See generally Terrell v. Oak & Alley Homes, LLC, 334 So. 3d 506 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). “The language in the AGCPA dos not require the application of our public policy when it will not serve the purpose of ‘protect[ing] the public against incompetent contractors for certain-type structures.’” Cooper v. Johnston, 283 Ala. 565 (1969). The Court reverses and remands the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.