Kenneth Laddie, Rebekah Laddie, Phillip Dial, and Rhonda Dial v. Alaran Construction, Inc.

── Kenneth Laddie, Rebekah Laddie, Phillip Dial, and Rhonda Dial v. Alaran Construction, Inc. ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Sarah Stewart Category: General Rel: May 15, 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-2025-0878 _________________________ Kenneth Laddie, Rebekah Laddie, Phillip Dial, and Rhonda Dial v. Alaran Construction, Inc. Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court (CV-21-900689) STEWART, Chief Justice. Kenneth Laddie, Rebekah Laddie, Phillip Dial, and Rhonda Dial ("the defendants") appeal from an order entered by the Shelby Circuit Court ("the trial court") dismissing their counterclaims against Alaran SC-2025-0878 Construction, Inc. For the following reasons, that order is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Facts and Procedural History In October 2020, the Laddies entered into a contract with Alaran for the construction of a house. Under the terms of the contract, the parties agreed that the Laddies would pay Alaran twice a month for the work performed. On November 12, 2021, before construction was complete, Alaran filed a complaint in the trial court, alleging that the Laddies had breached the contract by failing to make a scheduled payment. Alaran later amended the complaint to add the Dials as necessary defendants to the action after discovering that they were guarantors on the Laddies' construction loan. See Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 5, 2022, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint and asserted counterclaims alleging negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. The defendants later asserted a counterclaim alleging slander of title after Alaran filed a lien on the property on which the house was being constructed. On March 10, 2022, Alaran filed a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that they were not ripe because construction of the 2 SC-2025-0878 house was never completed. The trial court never entered a ruling on that motion. On April 22, 2024, Alaran filed a renewed motion to dismiss, raising the same ripeness argument as before. Additionally, as to the slander-of- title counterclaim, Alaran argued that dismissal was proper because, it said, it was legally required to file a lien to preserve its right to recovery. On June 13, 2024, the defendants filed a response to Alaran's motion. The trial court entered an order denying Alaran's renewed motion to dismiss on June 21, 2024. Between July 8, 2024, and August 15, 2024, Alaran filed three additional renewed motions to dismiss. On April 22, 2025, the trial court entered an order setting a hearing on May 27, 2025, to address "[a]ll pending motions." On May 22, 2025, the defendants filed a response to Alaran's most recent renewed motions to dismiss, reasserting their opposition to Alaran's arguments for dismissal. According to the record, neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared at the hearing on May 27, 2025. After the hearing concluded, counsel for the defendants notified the trial court by telephone that they 3 SC-2025-0878 had failed to appear because of a "calendaring mistake." Nevertheless, on May 28, 2025, the trial court issued the following order: "Due to Defendants' failure to timely re