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
