Ryan Hess v. Will Pecue

── Ryan Hess v. Will Pecue ── Case No.: SC-2025-0393 Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: March 20, 2026 Author: Sarah Stewart Category: General Rel: March 20, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0393 _________________________ Ryan Hess v. Will Pecue Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court (CV-22-900467) STEWART, Chief Justice. Ryan Hess appeals a judgment entered against him by the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of Will Pecue. Because the SC-2025-0393 evidence does not support Pecue's sole claim of fraud, we reverse the judgment. Background In August 2021, Pecue entered into two contracts with "Gulf Coast Dock Masters/H5K Company, LLC" ("H5K") to replace two piers near Pecue's house on Ono Island. The contracts stated that they were between "William Pecue … and Gulf Coast Dock Masters/H5K Company, LLC and its representative, Ryan Hess." One contract related to the replacement of a pier across the street from Pecue's house that the parties referred to as the "harbor pier." The other contract related to the replacement of a pier located behind Pecue's house that the parties referred to as the "social pier." The contracts stated that "treated lumber" was to be used to construct the piers. It is undisputed that the harbor pier was completed and that Pecue paid the full contract price. However, Pecue terminated the social-pier contract before the social pier was finished and without paying the full contract price. In May 2022, Pecue filed a complaint in the trial court asserting a single count of fraud against H5K and Hess and seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court held a bench trial 2 SC-2025-0393 on January 27, 2025. The evidence at trial indicated that the dealings between Pecue and Hess occurred between August and November 2021. In September, when the social pier was nearly complete and all that remained to be done was to finish a pavilion structure, Pecue noticed that nontreated lumber had been used in certain areas on the pier. Pecue notified Hess and reminded him that the social-pier contract required the use of treated lumber. Hess insisted that he had ordered only treated lumber, but when Hess went on-site to view the lumber, he acknowledged that certain boards on the social pier were nontreated lumber, which he attributed to a mistake by his crew. Hess had his crew replace between 20 and 30 boards on the social pier. The parties dispute what occurred next. Pecue contends that Hess refused to replace additional areas of nontreated lumber because, he testified, Hess told him H5K would lose money. Pecue testified that he "saw that as a refusal, an outright refusal to follow the contract, the remedy provisions and ultimately the warranty." As a result, Pecue testified that, on October 11, 2021, he sent Hess via text message a notice of default in compliance with a provision in the social-pier contract. Pecue testified that he gave Hess two weeks to remedy the issues but that Hess 3 SC-2025-0393 never came to cure the default and that there was "radio silence." According to Hess, around the time Pecue informed him of the discovery of the nontreated lumber, he had advis