Limestone Creek Developers, LLC v. Trapp, 107 So. 3d 189

LCD formed by Yarbrough and McDonald to purchase and develop property owned by Margaret B. Hulsey for Heritage Landings; LCD contracted with Trapp (and his allied entities) to purchase 51 lots at $30,000 each; Trapp would initially buy 10 lots and later 7 more, with LCD funding some development costs; development work began, including septic work for 12 lots and landscape/sign work, and Trapp financed through engineering costs; Trapp failed to close in 2010, LCD sued for fraud, breach, and specific performance, later adding the Trapp companies under an alter ego theory; the trial court voided LCD–Trapp contract under §11-24-2(a), and granted summary judgment for Trapp defendants; LCD appeals; the court ultimately holds the contract void due to MCSR §1.2.3 and affirms the summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did LCD’s contract with Trapp violate § 11-24-2(a) or the MCSR?	LCD contends no violation by Trapp not being part of ‘the public.’	Trapp defendants contend the contract violated subdivision-control provisions.	Contract void; summary judgment proper.
Whether the contract violated MCSR § 1.2.3 independently of § 11-24-2(a)?	LCD argues § 1.2.3 does not apply to Trapp.	Defendants rely on § 1.2.3 as prohibiting sale before final plat,	Contract void under § 1.2.3; judgment affirmed.

Ex parte W.D.J., 785 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000) (public policy bars enforcement of illegal contracts)
Hinkle v. Railway Express Agency, 242 Ala. 374, 6 So.2d 417 (Ala.1942) (illegality defeats enforceability of the contract)
Oden v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 621 So.2d 953 (Ala.1993) (Hinkle rule applied to deny recovery when act is illegal or immoral)
Kilgore Dev., Inc. v. Woodland Place, LLC, 47 So.3d 267 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (subdivision statutes protect the public; contracts violating them are void)
Brown v. Mountain Lakes Resort, Inc., 521 So.2d 24 (Ala.1988) (policy against enforcement of illegal transactions; public policy)