LVNV Funding, LLC v. Tammie Lynn (Moncries) Boyles

Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
REL: 10/23/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080442 LVNV Funding, LLC v. Tammie Lynn (Moncries) Boyles Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-06-2319) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV"), denying i t s motion t o vacate R u l e 60(b) p r o v i d e s , from a judgment a d e f a u l t judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 appeals 1 We r e v e r s e a n d remand. i npertinent part: 2080442 On A p r i l 18, 2006, Tammie Lynn LVNV i n t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t pertinent part, Boyles's and the same corporation, as South Resurgent Acquisition, invasion Inc."; of maliciously harassing collect a debt Capital Texas, that LVNV was that privacy Services, a n d one LVNV by "doing had Boyles L.P.[,] a n d t h e same committed the t o r t willfully, communications and d e c e i t seeking by suing Boyles prayed $50,000. B o y l e s ' s and to Boyles to a d e b t t h a t LVNV knew B o y l e s d i d n o t owe. As o f damages of LVNV h a d recover award as as Sherman d i d n o t owe; a n d t h a t committed the t o r t s of f r a u d a of G r e e n v i l l e , business intentionally, Boyles with f o r an sued ("the c i r c u i t c o u r t " ) . I n Capital, a corporation[,] Carolina"; that Boyles c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t LVNV was "one of Houston, Resurgent S e r v i c e s (Moncries) relief, i n t h e amount o f complaint i n s t r u c t e d the c i r c u i t court c l e r k t o s e r v e LVNV w i t h p r o c e s s b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l a n d t o a d d r e s s i t as follows: " K a t h y James "On m o t i o n a n d upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , t h e court may r e l i e v e a p a r t y or a party's legal representative from a f i n a l judgment, order, o r p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ... (4) t h e judgment i s v o i d " 2 2080442 LVNV F u n d i n g , LLC 15 S o u t h NE S t . S t e . 600 G r e e n v i l l e , SC 29601" The circuit court clerk complied with Boyles's and r e c e i v e d a r e t u r n r e c e i p t signed by B r a n d i instructions Taylor. A f t e r more t h a n 30 d a y s h a d e l a p s e d f r o m t h e d a t e had signed notified the return Boyles that receipt, LVNV had the circuit not answered Taylor court or clerk otherwise defended against Boyles's complaint. Boyles requested t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t c l e r k e n t e r a d e f a u l t a g a i n s t LVNV; h o w e v e r , t h e circuit the court circuit with leave August that and clerk court d i d n o t do s o . T h e r e a f t e r , to enter f o r Boyles Boyles moved a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t LVNV t o p r o v e t h e amount o f h e r damages. On 19, 2006, t h e c i r c u i t "a Judgment i s r e n d e r e d court entered an o r d e r a g a i n s t LVNV F u n d i n g , stating L L C , one t h e same as R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s , a n d one a n d t h e same as Sherman F i n a n c i a l G r o u p , d o i n g b u s i n e s s u n d e r t h e name o f LVNV F u n d i n g , to I n c . [ , ] t h e same b e i n g i n d e f a u l t , w i t h p r o v e damages." On December 14, 2006, t h e c i r c u i t without Boyles leave court, g i v i n g LVNV n o t i c e , h e l d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g f o r t o prove 2006, t h e c i r c u i t t h e amount o f h e r damages. On December 18, court entered 3 a judgment stating: 2080442 " T h i s c a u s e was s e t b e f o r e t h e u n d e r s i g n e d [on December 14, 2006,] f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t a k i n g t e s t i m o n y t o p r o v e damages, d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t h a v i n g been p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d h e r e i n i n f a v o r o f [Boyles] and a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , LVNV F u n d i n g , L L C , one and t h e same as R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e , L P , a c o r p o r a t i o n i n H o u s t o n , T e x a s ; a n d one a n d t h e same, as R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l , a c o r p o r a t i o n i n G r e e n v i l l e , South C a r o l i n a , which i s a l s o doing business as Sherman A c q u i s i t i o n , I n c . ( s e e p a r a g r a p h s 3 a n d 4, o f t h e C o m p l a i n t ) , on C o u n t One f o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y , willfully, and m a l i c i o u s l y invading [Boyles's] p r i v a c y a n d C o u n t T h r e e , f o r F r a u d a n d D e c e i t . The Court heard t h e sworn testimony of [Boyles], r e v i e w e d c e r t a i n documents p r e s e n t e d a n d h e a r d t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l and, t h e r e f o r e , e n t e r s Judgment h e r e i n i n t h e amount o f F i f t y T h o u s a n d a n d No/100 Dollars ($50,000.00) i n favor of [Boyles] and a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , s e p a r a t e l y a n d s e v e r a l l y , as hereinabove s e t f o r t h . " On attorney January a transmission. pursuant 16, copy 2008, of the Boyles's default attorney judgment On February 15, to Rule 60(b)(4), A l a . R. C i v . P., from the judgment e n t e r e d 2008, against LVNV sent by filed LVNV's facsimile a motion seeking relief i t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was v o i d b e c a u s e LVNV h a d n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y with process Specifically, i n accordance with Rule A l a . R. C i v . P. LVNV that i t had n o t been properly asserted 4, served served w i t h process because, i t s a i d , Rule 4 r e q u i r e d t h a t the p r o c e s s be a d d r e s s e d t o an o f f i c e r than a l i m i t e d partner) o f LVNV, a p a r t n e r i n LVNV, a m a n a g i n g o r g e n e r a l 4 (other agent 2080442 o f LVNV, o r an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d by appointment r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f the person o r by law t o o f LVNV a n d K a t h y James, t o whom t h e p r o c e s s h a d b e e n a d d r e s s e d , was n o t s u c h an o f f i c e r , p a r t n e r , o r agent. I n support o f i t s motion, LVNV s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t stated, i npertinent signed b y Tammy G a r r e t t , which part: "2. I am a s u p e r v i s o r f o r R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s LP ('Resurgent'). Resurgent i s the Master S e r v i c i n g A g e n t a n d A t t o r n e y - i n - F a c t f o r [LVNV]. My duties with Resurgent include s u p e r v i s i o n of a s t a f f t h a t i n c l u d e d K a t h y James d u r i n g h e r t e n u r e o f employment w i t h R e s u r g e n t i n 2006. I have g e n e r a l knowledge about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between R e s u r g e n t and LVNV a n d s p e c i f i c knowledge about t h e j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f K a t h y James i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o b o t h R e s u r g e n t a n d LVNV. "3. K a t h y James was e m p l o y e d b y R e s u r g e n t i n 2006. K a t h y James was n e v e r e m p l o y e d b y LVNV. "4. Ms. J a m e s ' s d u t i e s w i t h R e s u r g e n t i n c l u d e d a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o r e v i e w consumer a c c o u n t r e c o r d s a n d v e r i f y t h o s e f a c t s upon r e q u e s t . "5. W h i l e e m p l o y e d b y R e s u r g e n t i n 2006, K a t h y James was n e v e r a u t h o r i z e d b y a p p o i n t m e n t o r b y l a w t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f a n y e n t i t y , i n c l u d i n g LVNV. an "6. K a t h y James was n o t , n o r h a s s h e e v e r b e e n , o f f i c e r , p a r t n e r , managing o r g e n e r a l agent o f LVNV." In opposition t o LVNV's m o t i o n , James was a p r o p e r p e r s o n to receive 5 Boyles service asserted that o f p r o c e s s on 2080442 b e h a l f o f LVNV b e c a u s e James had submitted an a f f i d a v i t that she had s i g n e d as a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r LVNV i n t h e a c t i o n t h a t LVNV had affidavit, filed against Boyles. Boyles introduced which s t a t e d : "The undersigned R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , upon b e i n g says: LVNV Funding d u l y sworn, deposes LLC and " 1 . I am an A t t o r n e y i n F a c t f o r LVNV F u n d i n g LLC ( ' P l a i n t i f f ' ) , as p u r c h a s e r and a s s i g n e e of S e a r s , w h i c h i s a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d and e x i s t i n g u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f AL. "2. I have k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s h e r e i n s e t f o r t h and am d u l y a u t h o r i z e d t o make t h i s A f f i d a v i t ; t h a t t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t Tammie L. M o n c r i e s i s w i t h i n my k n o w l e d g e and i s j u s t , t r u e and c o r r e c t and t h a t a l l j u s t and l a w f u l o f f s e t s , payments and c r e d i t s have b e e n a l l o w e d . "3. T h e r e i s now due from p r i n c i p a l sum o f $3, 070.36 as o f statement. s a i d debtor the date of the this "4. To t h e b e s t o f my k n o w l e d g e t h e D e f e n d a n t ( s ) i s n o t now i n t h e m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , as d e f i n e d i n t h e S o l d i e r ' s and S a i l o r ' s C i v i l R e l i e f A c t o f 1940 w i t h amendments, n o r has b e e n i n s u c h s e r v i c e w i t h i n t h i r t y days h e r e o f . "LVNV F u n d i n g LLC, as a s s i g n e e o f Sears "BY: / s / K a t h y James " P r i n t Name: K a t h y James T i t l e : Attorney i n Fact" 6 that 2080442 LVNV s u b s e q u e n t l y Paul Torres and submitted two a f f i d a v i t s s i g n e d by J e a n an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by G a i l Conway. The a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by Torres stated, in pertinent part: "2. I am a L e g a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s L.P. As a r e s u l t o f my p o s i t i o n with the company, I am familiar with the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n LVNV F u n d i n g LLC, A l e g i s G r o u p , LLC ( ' A l e g i s ' ) , and R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s , L.P. ( ' R e s u r g e n t ' ). "3. I n t h i s r e g a r d , A l e g i s i s t h e m a n a g i n g a g e n t of Resurgent, which provides support s e r v i c e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h LVNV's consumer d e b t p o r t f o l i o s . Those support services include reviewing and researching consumer r e c o r d s and verifying that r e s e a r c h by affidavit i f necessary. Alegis and R e s u r g e n t a r e n o t and have n e v e r b e e n a u t h o r i z e d by a p p o i n t m e n t o r by l a w t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f LVNV, and n e i t h e r A l e g i s n o r R e s u r g e n t a r e , o r e v e r have b e e n an o f f i c e r , p a r t n e r , m a n a g i n g o r g e n e r a l a g e n t o f LVNV. "4. As a p a r t o f i t s s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s t o LVNV, Resurgent a u t h o r i z e s c e r t a i n of i t s employees t o e x e c u t e a f f i d a v i t s on b e h a l f o f LVNV. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n the a t t a c h e d ' W r i t t e n Consent A c t i o n of the Board of Managers i n L i e u of a M e e t i n g , ' R e s u r g e n t ' s m a n a g i n g a g e n t A l e g i s g i v e s K a t h y James l i m i t e d a u t h o r i t y t o e x e c u t e s u c h a f f i d a v i t s . The attached document was i n e f f e c t i n A p r i l o f 2006 and s t a t e s t h e f u l l e x t e n t o f James's a u t h o r i t y t o a c t on b e h a l f o f LVNV d u r i n g t h a t t i m e p e r i o d . "5. The attached document was kept and m a i n t a i n e d by R e s u r g e n t i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f i t s r e g u l a r l y c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y , and i t was the r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e of Resurgent's business a c t i v i t y t o c r e a t e t h a t document. The document i s a t r u e and a c c u r a t e c o p y o f t h e o r i g i n a l w i t h t h e 7 first 2080442 e x c e p t i o n t h a t i t i s an u n e x e c u t e d copy o f t h e o r i g i n a l . The o r i g i n a l e x e c u t e d copy o f t h e o r i g i n a l i s n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , I have a t t e m p t e d t o l o c a t e the original executed version of the attached document, b u t have b e e n u n a b l e t o l o c a t e i t a t t h i s time." In pertinent part, t h e document attached to the first a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by T o r r e s s t a t e d : "ALEGIS GROUP LLC WRITTEN CONSENT ACTION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS IN L I E U OF A MEETING "The u n d e r s i g n e d b e i n g a l l t h e Managers o f A l e g i s Group, L L C , a D e l a w a r e limited liability company ( t h e 'Company'), i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a n d pursuant t o Section 18-404(d) o f t h e Delaware L i m i t e d L i a b i l i t y Company A c t , do h e r e b y c o n s e n t t o , adopt and approve the following r e s o l u t i o n s on b e h a l f o f t h e Company a n d on b e h a l f o f R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s L.P., i n i t s c a p a c i t y a s g e n e r a l manager o f R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s L.P. "RESOLVED, t h a t t h i s c o n s e n t a c t i o n ('Consent A c t i o n ' ) s h a l l have t h e same f o r c e a n d e f f e c t as t h o u g h a d o p t e d a t a m e e t i n g o f t h e Company's B o a r d of M a n a g e r s d u l y c a l l e d a n d h e l d . "APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY "RESOLVED, t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s b e , and hereby are, appointed A u t h o r i z e d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the Company f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e o f s i g n i n g , under a u t h o r i t y granted i n the accordance with g e n e r a l Company c o r p o r a t e a u t h o r i t y , a f f i d a v i t s as a t t o r n e y i n f a c t o f LVNV F u n d i n g L L C ('LVNV'), attesting to balance, interest rate and o t h e r m a t t e r s as n e c e s s a r y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h l i t i g a t i o n 8 2080442 b r o u g h t t o e f f e c t t h e l i q u i d a t i o n o f a s s e t s owned by LVNV and s e r v i c e d by R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l Services L.P.: "... K a t h y James (Capitalization original; " emphasis added.) The a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by G a i l Conway s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "2. I am e m p l o y e d by R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s LP ('Resurgent') as Human C a p i t a l Management S i t e Manager a t R e s u r g e n t ' s o f f i c e s l o c a t e d a t 15 S o u t h M a i n S t r e e t , S u i t e 700, G r e e n v i l l e , S o u t h C a r o l i n a . I have b e e n e m p l o y e d by R e s u r g e n t s i n c e 2004. "3. B r a n d i T a y l o r has n o t e v e r b e e n e m p l o y e d LVNV F u n d i n g , LLC ('LVNV'). by "4. B r a n d i T a y l o r was p r e v i o u s l y e m p l o y e d by R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s L.P. as a R e c e p t i o n i s t . "5. B r a n d i T a y l o r has n o t e v e r b e e n a u t h o r i z e d t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f R e s u r g e n t o r LVNV. "6. B r a n d i T a y l o r has n o t e v e r b e e n an o f f i c e r , p a r t n e r , managing or g e n e r a l agent of Resurgent or LVNV." The second affidavit signed by Torres stated, pertinent part: "3. R e s u r g e n t C a p i t a l S e r v i c e s , L.P.'s a d d r e s s i n G r e e n v i l l e , S o u t h C a r o l i n a i s 15 S. M a i n S t r e e t , S u i t e 700, G r e e n v i l l e , SC 29601. "4. Carolina LVNV F u n d i n g , LLC's address in is 200 Meeting Street, Suite 9 South 206, in 2080442 C h a r l e s t o n , SC 29401. "5. LVNV F u n d i n g , LLC's r e g i s t e r e d agent i n S o u t h C a r o l i n a i s CT C o r p o r a t i o n S y s t e m , 75 B e a t t i e P l a c e , G r e e n v i l l e , SC 2 9 6 0 1 . " B o y l e s moved t o s t r i k e t h e c o r p o r a t e document a t t a c h e d t o the first affidavit contained hearsay; document was s i g n e d by Torres on t h e g r o u n d that i t LVNV, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e an e x c e p t i o n t o the hearsay rule because i t c o n s t i t u t e d a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e m o t i o n t o s t r i k e . In Boyles on response submitted behalf t o the second evidence affidavit indicating Suite by Torres, (1) t h a t l a w s u i t s o f LVNV i n A l a b a m a h a d l i s t e d Street, signed i t s address South Main 700, G r e e n v i l l e , 29601, and (2) t h a t LVNV h a d n o t a p p o i n t e d CT System as i t s r e g i s t e r e d agent Carolina i n South South filed as 15 Carolina Corporation until S e p t e m b e r 12, 2006. T h e r e a f t e r , LVNV s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t LVNV had b e e n f o r m e d as a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company i n D e l a w a r e on A p r i l 13, 2005, a n d t h a t i t s r e g i s t e r e d a g e n t i n D e l a w a r e was The C o r p o r a t i o n T r u s t Company. Following several hearings 10 on LVNV's Rule 60(b)(4) 2080442 motion, the judgment circuit denying court, the on January motion. LVNV 7, timely 2009, entered appeals to a this c o u r t , contending t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n denying i t s Rule it 60(b)(4) motion says, i t was therefore, In t o v a c a t e the d e f a u l t judgment not properly served with because, process the d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t i t i s v o i d . r e v i e w i n g the r u l i n g of a t r i a l c o u r t on a m o t i o n v a c a t e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t void, this Kingvision (Ala. court applies Pay-Per-View, 2003). a de novo L t d . v. standard Ayers, 886 of So. to was review. 2d 45, 51 D i s c r e t i o n p l a y s no p a r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a d e f a u l t judgment i s v o i d . I d . " ' " ' i f it and, must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , the judgment i s v a l i d , i t must be set aside.'"'" Id. ( q u o t i n g R u s s e l l C o a l Co. v. S m i t h , 845 So. 2d 781, 783 ( A l a . 2002), Westgate, quoting Ltd., 769 So. i n turn 2d 890, Northbrook 893 Indem. ( A l a . 2000), I n s u r a n c e Mgmt & A d m i n . , I n c . v. P a l o m a r 2d 209, 212 Rule deprives 4 judgment Co. v. quoting I n s . Corp., in 590 turn So. ( A l a . 1991)). " ' " ' F a i l u r e of p r o p e r s e r v i c e under a void.'"'" R u s s e l l C o a l , 845 court of jurisdiction Kingvision, So. 2d a t 783, 11 886 So. 2d and at quoting i n turn renders i t s 52 (quoting Northbrook 2080442 Indem., 769 So. 2d a t 893, q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e P a t e , So. 2d 427, process on 428-29 a (Ala. 1995)). defendant "'"'When i s c o n t e s t e d as the 673 of improper being service or i n v a l i d , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o v e t h a t service o f p r o c e s s was performed correctly D e n n i s v. S t i l l W a t e r s R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n , 20, 2009] added) 403, So. 3d , legally.'"'" [Ms. 2071064, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) Smith, March (emphasis ( q u o t i n g Bank o f A m e r i c a C o r p . v. E d w a r d s , 881 405 So. 2d ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n H o r i z o n s 2000, I n c . v. 620 So. 2d 606, p a r t e Volkswagenwerk (Ala. and 607 ( A l a . 1993), Aktiengesellschaft, quoting i n turn 443 So. 2d 880, Ex 884 1983)). Rule 4(c)(6), liability partner agent, A l a . R. company may be C i v . P., provides that a s e r v e d "by serving an limited officer, a (other than a l i m i t e d p a r t n e r ) , a managing or g e n e r a l o r any agent a u t h o r i z e d by appointment o r by law to r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s . " R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides, i n pertinent part: " I n t h e e v e n t o f s e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l by t h e c l e r k , t h e c l e r k s h a l l p l a c e a copy o f t h e p r o c e s s and c o m p l a i n t ... i n an e n v e l o p e and s h a l l a d d r e s s t h e e n v e l o p e t o t h e p e r s o n t o be served with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o f o r w a r d . I n t h e c a s e o f an e n t i t y w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f one o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s o f R u l e 12 2080442 4 ( c ) , t h e a d d r e s s e e s h a l l be a p e r s o n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s u b d i v i s i o n . ..." (Emphasis added.) The e v i d e n c e before the c i r c u i t LVNV was a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y the person properly described i n to whom that company. B e c a u s e K a t h y James was the process s e r v e d under Rule court established was addressed, LVNV 4 o f the Alabama R u l e s of was Civil P r o c e d u r e o n l y i f James was "an o f f i c e r , a p a r t n e r ( o t h e r t h a n a l i m i t e d p a r t n e r ) , a m a n a g i n g o r g e n e r a l a g e n t , o r any a g e n t authorized by a p p o i n t m e n t process." Rule 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) ; o f an e n t i t y w i t h i n Rule established agent law t o r e c e i v e see R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) t h e scope 4 ( c ) , the addressee appropriate o r by service of ("In t h e c a s e o f one o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s o f s h a l l be a p e r s o n subdivision."). The d e s c r i b e d i n the undisputed t h a t James was n o t an o f f i c e r , a u t h o r i z e d by appointment evidence a p a r t n e r , o r an to receive service of process on b e h a l f o f LVNV. LVNV a r g u e s by law to because, t h a t James was a l s o n o t an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d receive LVNV says, service of process i t d i d not exercise on behalf a high of LVNV degree of c o n t r o l o v e r James. I n K i n g v i s i o n , s u p r a , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court stated that "[t]o establish 13 proper service on a 2080442 c o r p o r a t i o n b y s e r v i c e on an a l l e g e d a g e n t n o t a u t h o r i z e d b y appointment of the c o r p o r a t i o n , a plaintiff must p r o v e that the c o r p o r a t i o n e x e r c i s e d a 'high degree o f c o n t r o l ' over t h e a l l e g e d a g e n t . " 886 So. 2d a t 51 ( q u o t i n g H o r i z o n s So. 2d a t 6 0 7 ) . B o y l e s , proved that service on t h e o t h e r hand, argues James was an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f 2000, 620 t h a t she by law t o r e c e i v e o f LVNV b e c a u s e , she s a y s , she p r o v e d t h a t James h a d a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f In arguing authority Boyles filed o f LVNV. that to receive relies she p r o v e d James service of process on t h e a f f i d a v i t i n i t s action against affidavit that signed Boyles. had apparent on b e h a l f o f LVNV, b y James, w h i c h LVNV In pertinent part, that stated: " 1 . I am an A t t o r n e y i n F a c t f o r LVNV F u n d i n g LLC ( ' P l a i n t i f f ' ) , as p u r c h a s e r a n d a s s i g n e e of Sears, which i s a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d and e x i s t i n g u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f AL. "2. I have k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s h e r e i n s e t f o r t h a n d am d u l y a u t h o r i z e d t o make t h i s A f f i d a v i t ; t h a t t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t Tammie L. M o n c r i e s i s w i t h i n my k n o w l e d g e a n d i s j u s t , t r u e a n d c o r r e c t a n d t h a t a l l j u s t and l a w f u l o f f s e t s , payments and c r e d i t s have b e e n a l l o w e d . "3. T h e r e i s now due f r o m s a i d d e b t o r t h e p r i n c i p a l sum o f $3, 070.36 as o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s 14 2080442 statement." (Emphasis added.) A l t h o u g h she was an attorney-in-fact knowledgeable regarding was authorized Boyles owed indicates James's a f f i d a v i t LVNV, was $3,070.36, t h a t LVNV e x e r c i s e d indicates process that a high Moreover, i n the service because nothing o f LVNV, B o y l e s apparent i n James's to receive likewise authority properly affidavit service failed to receive p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f LVNV. T h e r e f o r e , of t o prove service of we c o n c l u d e t h a t B o y l e s f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t James was an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d by law t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on LVNV. LVNV general of d e g r e e o f c o n t r o l o v e r James. See on b e h a l f receive affidavit . Boyles d i d not prove James h a d a u t h o r i t y had t h a t she t h a t LVNV was So. 3d a t that James was o f LVNV. See D e n n i s , Kingvision. that t h e amount to receive Boyles bore the burden of p r o v i n g served. she and t h a t nothing James h a d a u t h o r i t y p r o c e s s on b e h a l f that LVNV's c l a i m a g a i n s t B o y l e s , t o make t h e a f f i d a v i t , LVNV that for indicates also argues that James was not a "managing a g e n t " o f LVNV f o r p u r p o s e s o f R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) . or Boyles, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r g u e s t h a t James was a m a n a g i n g o r g e n e r a l 15 2080442 a g e n t o f LVNV b e c a u s e , B o y l e s s a y s , power o f a t t o r n e y signing affidavits t o a c t as and the James was a u t h o r i z e d by a a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r LVNV i n verifying information regarding debts owed t o LVNV. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e C o m m i t t e e Comments t o Amendment t o R u l e 4 E f f e c t i v e A u g u s t 1, the 2004, s t a t e : " S u b d i v i s i o n ( c ) . Former s u b d i v i s i o n s (6)-(9) a r e c o m b i n e d i n t o a new s u b d i v i s i o n ( 6 ) . The f o r m e r p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g c o r p o r a t i o n s and o t h e r b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s t o be s e r v e d by c e r t i f i e d m a i l a t any o f t h e i r u s u a l p l a c e s o f b u s i n e s s has b e e n e l i m i n a t e d . Now, personal o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l s e r v i c e must be d i r e c t e d to the r e g i s t e r e d or a p p o i n t e d agent or to a s p e c i f i c p e r s o n s u c h as an ' o f f i c e r . ' S u b d i v i s i o n (6) i s p a t t e r n e d on R u l e 4 ( d ) ( 5 ) , A r k . R. C i v . P., and Fed. R. C i v . P. 4 ( h ) ( 1 ) . The p h r a s e 'managing o r g e n e r a l agent' i s used i n a m a j o r i t y of the s t a t e s and has b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d i n many f e d e r a l c a s e s . The i n t e n t i s to adopt the m a j o r i t y r u l e of f e d e r a l caselaw i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the p h r a s e 'managing o r general agent.'" I n V i l l a f a n a v. A u t o - O w n e r s I n s u r a n c e , 06-0684-WS-B, Dec. in F. Supp. 2d), 29, the 2006) United S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t of Alabama (S.D. (Civil Action A l a . 2006) States District (not Court published for stated: " R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] was amended t o a l l o w s e r v i c e on a m a n a g i n g a g e n t o n l y r e c e n t l y , and A l a b a m a c o u r t s have y e t t o a d d r e s s t h e s c o p e o f t h e t e r m . However, t h e c o m m i t t e e comments a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e 2004 amendment s t a t e t h a t ' [ t ] h e i n t e n t i s t o adopt the m a j o r i t y r u l e of f e d e r a l caselaw i n interpreting the phrase "managing or general a g e n t . " ' The Court thus turns t o t h a t body of 16 No. the 2080442 jurisprudence. "'A m a n a g i n g a g e n t i s one a u t h o r i z e d t o t r a n s a c t a l l b u s i n e s s of a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d at a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e and must be v e s t e d w i t h p o w e r s o f d i s c r e t i o n r a t h e r than b e i n g under d i r e c t s u p e r i o r c o n t r o l . ' B r i d g e p o r t M u s i c , I n c . v. Rhyme S y n d i c a t e M u s i c , 37 6 F.3d 615, 624 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ; a c c o r d Grammenos v. Lemos, 457 F.2d 1067, 1073 (2nd C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) ; 1 James Wm. Moore e t a l . , Moore's F e d e r a l Practice 5 4 . 5 3 [ 2 ] [ b ] (3d ed. 2 0 0 6 ) ; c f . J i m Fox E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . v. A i r F r a n c e , 664 F.2d 63, 64 ( 5 t h C i r . 1981) (a m a n a g i n g a g e n t i s one 'invested with general powers involving the exercise of independent j u d g m e n t and d i s c r e t i o n ' ) . Thus, a s a l e s a g e n t who c o u l d n o t s e t p r i c e s o r t e r m s and whose c o n t r a c t s were s u b j e c t t o company a p p r o v a l c o u l d n o t be a m a n a g i n g a g e n t . Dodco, I n c . v. A m e r i c a n B o n d i n g Co., 7 F.3d 1387, 1388 (8th C i r . 1993)." (Footnote omitted.) I n t h e c a s e now proving b e f o r e u s , B o y l e s , who t h a t s e r v i c e was p r o v e t h a t James was proper, "'one see bore the burden of Dennis, supra, direct with superior M u s i c , 376 been powers of F.3d attorney, she d i s c r e t i o n rather control.'" Villafana at 624). B o y l e s authorized was to act ipso to a u t h o r i z e d to t r a n s a c t a l l business o f a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d a t a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e ' " and "'vested failed on t h a t she than being (quoting Bridgeport of LVNV by a LVNV. However, t h i s a r g u m e n t has no m e r i t . had power of agent of I n Dodco, I n c . v. f a c t o a managing or g e n e r a l 17 under a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e James behalf was 2080442 A m e r i c a n B o n d i n g Co., 7 F.3d 1387 States Court of Appeals (8th C i r . 1993), the U n i t e d f o r the E i g h t h Circuit s a l e s a g e n t f o r a b o n d i n g company was n o t r e n d e r e d held that a a "managing o r g e n e r a l a g e n t " o f t h e b o n d i n g company b y v i r t u e o f a power of a t t o r n e y deliver g r a n t i n g t h e a g e n t t h e a u t h o r i t y " t o ' i s s u e and bonds, u n d e r t a k i n g s , recognizances or other written o b l i g a t i o n s ' f o r [ t h e b o n d i n g c o m p a n y ] " b e c a u s e " [ t h e power o f attorney] was authorize [the s a l e s agent] t o accept s e r v i c e o f process Id. a t 1389. not a general In the case power now of attorney; before i t d i d not u s , James's " power of a t t o r n e y l i m i t e d James's a u t h o r i t y t o s i g n i n g a f f i d a v i t s as an attorney-in-fact o f LVNV t h a t a t t e s t e d t o b a l a n c e , r a t e , and o t h e r m a t t e r s i n c o n n e c t i o n interest with l i t i g a t i o n brought t o e f f e c t t h e l i q u i d a t i o n o f a s s e t s owned b y LVNV and s e r v i c e d by Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. ("Resurgent"). Thus, James's power o f a t t o r n e y , l i k e t h e power o f a t t o r n e y a t i s s u e in Dodco, general was power a limited power of attorney; receive s e r v i c e of process of attorney rather i t d i d not authorize than a James to on b e h a l f o f LVNV. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t James was n o t a "managing o r g e n e r a l LVNV f o r p u r p o s e s o f R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) . See Dodco. 18 agent" of 2080442 C i t i n g A l f a C o r p o r a t i o n v . A l f a g r e s , S.A., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , B o y l e s a r g u e s t h a t , e v e n i f James was n o t an o f f i c e r , a p a r t n e r , a m a n a g i n g o r g e n e r a l a g e n t , o r an agent authorized service of process service o r by law t o r e c e i v e on LVNV, s h e n o n e t h e l e s s e f f e c t e d proper of process by appointment upon T a y l o r , as R e s u r g e n t ' s mail LVNV b e c a u s e , Boyles says, Brandi r e c e p t i o n i s t , was a u t h o r i z e d t o r e c e i v e on b e h a l f o f R e s u r g e n t a n d t o d e l i v e r i tto Resurgent; R e s u r g e n t was "one a n d t h e same a s " LVNV; a n d LVNV r e c e i v e d actual notice of Boyles's In A l f a g r e s , the process a c t i o n i n time was a d d r e s s e d and s e n t b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l t o an a d d r e s s to avoid a default. t o " A l f a g r e s , S.A.," l i s t e d as t h e " M i a m i o f f i c e " o f A l f a g r e s i n i t s m a r k e t i n g and p r o m o t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . 385 F. Supp. 2d a t 1238. A woman named A l b a M o n t a l l a n a , had p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d Corporation, h e r s e l f t o an i n v e s t i g a t o r o f A l f a the p l a i n t i f f i n A l f a g r e s , as an e m p l o y e e o f A l f a g r e s , s i g n e d t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t on F e b r u a r y Alfagres filed a motion who 1 1 , 2005. I d . t o quash t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on M a r c h 14, 2005, b e f o r e a d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t i t . 385 F. the Supp. 2d a t 1238-39. The U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r Middle District o f Alabama 19 held that the service of 2080442 process "was i n s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e F e d e r a l and Alabama Rules any d e f e c t s i n service of process therefore district of C i v i l harmless court have Procedure and t h a t not prejudiced error." 385 F. Supp. Alfagres and a r e 2d a t 1239. The explained: "Although t h e summons and c o m p l a i n t were addressed t o the c o r p o r a t i o n i t s e l f , r a t h e r than t o a s p e c i f i e d p e r s o n ( i . e . an o f f i c e r , p a r t n e r , o r a u t h o r i z e d agent of the c o r p o r a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n Ala. R. C i v . P. 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) ) , as r e q u i r e d b y A l a . R. Civ. P. 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , s e r v i c e o f t h e summons a n d complaint c l e a r l y complied with a l l other aspects of R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) and r e a c h e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e persons w i t h i n A l f a g r e s , as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t A l f a g r e s f i l e d i t s m o t i o n t o q u a s h on M a r c h 14, 2005. See U n i t e d F o o d & C o m m e r c i a l W o r k e r s U n i o n [ v . A l p h a B e t a C o . ] , 736 F.2d [1371] a t 1382 [ ( 9 t h C i r . 1984)] ('[A] d e f e n d a n t ' s ... a p p e a r a n c e i n an a c t i o n s h o u l d be enough t o p r e v e n t a n y t e c h n i c a l e r r o r i n form from i n v a l i d a t i n g the process') (internal c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " A l f a g r e s ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t M o n t a l l a n a i s n o t an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on i t s b e h a l f i s a l s o t o no a v a i l . A c c o r d i n g t o A l a . R. C i v . P. 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , t h e ' p e r s o n o r e n t i t y ' who s i g n s the return receipt need only be an 'agent' authorized t o r e c e i v e and d e l i v e r m a i l to the addressee and need n o t be t h e a c t u a l person a u t h o r i z e d t o r e c e i v e p r o c e s s under Rule 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) . Throughout i t s b r i e f s and p l e a d i n g s , A l f a g r e s has r e p e a t e d l y i n s i s t e d t h a t the Miami address t o which t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t was s e n t i s a c t u a l l y t h e a d d r e s s o f OPA I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o r p o r a t i o n , A l f a g r e s ' s American d i s t r i b u t o r , and i s f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s s i m p l y a m a i l d r o p 'from w h i c h m a i l i s forwarded to Alfagres a t i t s Bogota, Colombia 20 2080442 o f f i c e . ' Given A l f a g r e s ' s c l e a r admission that mail sent t o the Miami address i s forwarded t o A l f a g r e s , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t M o n t a l l a n a ' s s i g n a t u r e was s u f f i c i e n t t o comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A l a . R. C i v . P. 4(i)(2)(C); regardless of whether M o n t a l l a n a was i n f a c t an e m p l o y e e o f A l f a g r e s o r o f OPA I n t e r n a t i o n a l , h e r p r e s e n c e a t t h e o f f i c e a n d r e c e i p t o f t h e m a i l i n d i c a t e s t h a t she was c l e a r l y part of the e n t i t y authorized t o forward mail to A l f a g r e s a t i t s Colombian headquarters. " M o r e o v e r , w h i l e i t i s u n c l e a r e x a c t l y when A l f a g r e s r e c e i v e d t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t i n C o l o m b i a , nowhere i n t h e r e c o r d does i t d i s p u t e e v e n t u a l l y r e c e i v i n g t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t . I n fact, the record indicates that Alfagres received a c t u a l n o t i c e o f A l f a ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t i t no l a t e r t h a n M a r c h 1 1 , 2005, t h e d a t e on w h i c h D a l l o s s i g n e d the a f f i d a v i t attached t o A l f a g r e s ' s motion t o q u a s h . G i v e n t h a t ' t h e modern c o n c e p t i o n o f s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s i s p r i m a r i l y as a n o t i c e g i v i n g d e v i c e , ' Andrews v . C o f f e e C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , [(Civil A c t i o n No. 87-D-1095-S, J a n . 15, 1988)] (M.D. A l a . 1988) (Dubina, J.) [ ( n o t p u b l i s h e d i n F. S u p p . ) ] ( q u o t i n g C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e , C i v i l 2d § 1 0 8 3 ) , 'to quash s e r v i c e a t t h i s j u n c t u r e would s i m p l y serve t o i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t s o f s e r v i c e and d e l a y t h e proceedings.' C o c a - C o l a Co. v . Empresa Comercial I n t ' l de F r u t a s S.A., [ ( N o . 96-358-CIV-T-17C, J u l y 1, 1 9 9 6 ) ] (M.D. F l a . 1996) ( K o v a c h e v i c h , J.) [ ( n o t p u b l i s h e d i n F. S u p p . ) ] . "However, t h e c o u r t i s m i n d f u l that i ti s p o s s i b l e t h e r e was some d e l a y i n t h e f o r w a r d i n g o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t f r o m t h e M i a m i a d d r e s s t o A l f a g r e s ' s Colombian headquarters. Therefore, to e n s u r e t h e r e i s no p r e j u d i c e t o A l f a g r e s , t h e c o u r t w i l l a l l o w i t 20 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e i s s u a n c e of t h i s order to f i l e another response t o the complaint." 21 2080442 385 F. Supp. 2d a t 1239-40 ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ; e m p h a s i s added) (footnote omitted). F i r s t , we n o t e t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Alabama has stated: "In Alfagres, the p l a i n t i f f addressed process to the corporate defendant i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n t o any o f i t s o f f i c e r s o r a g e n t s . An i n d i v i d u a l h o l d i n g h e r s e l f o u t as an e m p l o y e e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d t h e p r o c e s s by c e r t i f i e d m a i l and f o r w a r d e d i t t o the c o r p o r a t i o n , which then appeared i n t h e s u i t . I d . a t 1234 & n. 2, 1238. The Court d i d not address the plaintiff's a p p a r e n t f a i l u r e t o s e r v e a managing agent or other i n d i v i d u a l specified i n Rule 4(c)(6); instead, i t concluded only that the p l a i n t i f f s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied w i t h Rule 4(i)(2)(C), which governs the p r o c e d u r e f o r s e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l . [385 F. Supp. 2d] a t 1239. Thus, i t s s t a t e m e n t t h a t ' s e r v i c e was i n s u b s t a n t i a l s tatement c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e F e d e r a l and A l a b a m a Rules of C i v i l Procedure,' i d . , extends only to the l a t t e r rule. Even could A l f a g r e s be c o n s t r u e d as b l e s s i n g a f a i l u r e t o s e r v e anyone d e s c r i b e d i n R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) , i t does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e m a j o r i t y f e d e r a l v i e w as d i s c u s s e d i n t e x t , and i t i s t h a t view t h i s C o u r t i s bound t o a p p l y . " Villafana, n.7 Second, (emphasis Alfagres added). i s distinguishable from the case now b e f o r e us b e c a u s e i n A l f a g r e s i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t A l f a g r e s h a d r e c e i v e d a c t u a l n o t i c e o f A l f a ' s a c t i o n a g a i n s t i t and h a d 22 2080442 filed a motion t o quash the service before a d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t i t w h e r e a s , i n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , B o y l e s , who b o r e supra, failed Boyles's against t h e burden t o prove action LVNV. of proving proper 2 before service, see Dennis, t h a t LVNV r e c e i v e d a c t u a l the entry Accordingly, we of the d e f a u l t find no m e r i t notice of judgment i n Boyles's a r g u m e n t b a s e d on A l f a g r e s . B o y l e s a l s o a r g u e s t h a t s h e p r o p e r l y s e r v e d LVNV b e c a u s e , she says, Resurgent even i f R e s u r g e n t not introduce i s "one a n d t h e same a s " LVNV. However, i s "one a n d t h e same" as LVNV, B o y l e s d i d any e v i d e n c e establishing that James was an B o y l e s a r g u e s t h a t s h e d i d p r o v e t h a t LVNV r e c e i v e d actual notice of Boyles's action before the entry of the d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t ; h o w e v e r , t h e o n l y " e v i d e n c e " B o y l e s c i t e s as p r o o f o f LVNV's h a v i n g r e c e i v e d a c t u a l n o t i c e o f B o y l e s ' s a c t i o n b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e d e f a u l t judgment i s a statement made b y LVNV's a t t o r n e y a t one o f t h e h e a r i n g s on LVNV's R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) m o t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "[LVNV] d i d n ' t a n s w e r t h e c o m p l a i n t a g a i n b e c a u s e t h e c o m p l a i n t was d i r e c t e d t o someone else." That statement i s , at best, ambiguous. One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t i s t h a t LVNV d i d n o t a n s w e r t h e c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e LVNV d i d n o t know o f i t s e x i s t e n c e b e c a u s e i t h a d b e e n d i r e c t e d t o someone o t h e r t h a n LVNV. M o r e o v e r , an u n s w o r n s t a t e m e n t made b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s i s n o t e v i d e n c e . See Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911 So. 2d 719, 725 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ("The u n s w o r n s t a t e m e n t s , factual assertions, and arguments of counsel are not e v i d e n c e . " ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , B o y l e s d i d n o t p r o v e t h a t LVNV received actual notice of Boyles's action before the entry of the d e f a u l t judgment. 2 23 2080442 officer, LVNV a partner, or Resurgent appointment o r a managing o r g e n e r a l agent o f e i t h e r or that she was an a g e n t authorized by o r b y l a w t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f e i t h e r LVNV o r R e s u r g e n t . See R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) . T h e r e f o r e , e v e n if Resurgent i s "one a n d t h e same a s " LVNV, B o y l e s f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t LVNV was p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s i n a c c o r d a n c e with Rule 4(c)(6). Boyles that 15 also South argues Main that Street, LVNV i s estopped Suite from denying 700, G r e e n v i l l e , South C a r o l i n a 29601, i s i t s a d d r e s s . However, b e c a u s e B o y l e s f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s t h e p r o c e s s t o an o f f i c e r , a partner, a managing o r g e n e r a l a g e n t , o r an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d b y a p p o i n t m e n t o r b y l a w t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) , t h e issue Main its whether Street, Suite accordance court's denying that 15 South C a r l i n a 29601, i s irrelevant. B o y l e s a r g u e s t h a t , e v e n i f LVNV was n o t s e r v e d with judgment s a y s , LVNV f a i l e d therefore, from 700, G r e e n v i l l e , S o u t h address i s l e g a l l y Finally, in LVNV was e s t o p p e d Rule 4, A l a . R. C i v . P., the circuit s h o u l d n o n e t h e l e s s be u p h e l d b e c a u s e , she t o r e g i s t e r t o do b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a a n d , pursuant to § 10-12-52(c), 24 A l a . Code 1975, i t 2080442 s h o u l d be deemed t o have c o n s e n t e d t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s a t 15 South Main Street, Suite 700, G r e e n v i l l e , South Carolina 29601. S e c t i o n 1 0 - 1 2 - 5 2 ( c ) p r o v i d e s : " ( c ) A f o r e i g n l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company, b y transacting business in this state without r e g i s t r a t i o n , s h a l l be deemed t o c o n s e n t t o s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o causes o f a c t i o n a r i s i n g out of business transacted i n this state by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l addressed to the f o r e i g n limited liability company a t t h e o f f i c e r e q u i r e d t o be m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t e o r o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n where i t i s o r g a n i z e d , o r , i f n o t so r e q u i r e d , a t t h e p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e o f t h e l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company." However, § 1 0 - 1 2 - 5 2 ( c ) does n o t p u r p o r t t o r e l i e v e B o y l e s f r o m t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 6 ) t h a t she a d d r e s s to an o f f i c e r , the process a p a r t n e r , o r a managing o r g e n e r a l agent o f LVNV o r t o an a g e n t a u t h o r i z e d by appointment o r by law t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on b e h a l f o f LVNV. T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i f LVNV was r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e r and failed t o do s o , B o y l e s s e r v e LVNV i n a c c o r d a n c e t o do b u s i n e s s i n t h i s nonetheless w i t h Rule failed state to properly 4. B e c a u s e B o y l e s f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y s e r v e LVNV w i t h p r o c e s s in accordance with Rule a g a i n s t LVNV i s v o i d . circuit 4, the d e f a u l t See K i n g v i s i o n , court e r r e d i n denying judgment entered supra. Therefore, the LVNV's R u l e 60(b)(4) motion. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g 25 2080442 LVNV's Rule circuit 60(b) (4) m o t i o n court f o r further and remand proceedings the a c t i o n consistent to the with opinion. REVERSED AND Thompson, Thomas, REMANDED. P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 26 writing. this