Jeffery K. Jarrett v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/06/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter of D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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, 2010-2011 2090709 Jeffery K. Jarrett v. F e d e r a l N a t i o n a l Mortgage A s s o c i a t i o n Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-09-903905) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . F e d e r a l N a t i o n a l M o r t g a g e A s s o c i a t i o n ("FNMA") f i l e d an action against Jeffery K. Jarrett c e r t a i n premises occupied by J a r r e t t . seeking possession of I n i t s c o m p l a i n t , FNMA 2090709 alleged that i t s predecessor i n i n t e r e s t had entered into a m o r t g a g e - l o a n c o n t r a c t w i t h J a r r e t t , t h a t FNMA h a d f o r e c l o s e d on t h e m o r t g a g e , a n d t h a t , a l t h o u g h i t had served J a r r e t t w i t h a of the subject written Jarrett demand f o r possession had f a i l e d or refused to vacate record i n d i c a t e s that the complaint December 7, 2009. on January judgment. motion, property, the property. was s e r v e d The on J a r r e t t on J a r r e t t d i d n o t answer t h e c o m p l a i n t , 27, 2 0 1 0 , FNMA moved f o r t h e e n t r y and of a default On J a n u a r y 29, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d FNMA's entered a default judgment issued a w r i t of possession i n favor o f FNMA, a n d i n f a v o r o f FNMA. On F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , J a r r e t t f i l e d a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i n w h i c h he s o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment. believed certain constitute alleged I n t h a t m o t i o n , J a r r e t t a l l e g e d t h a t he facts a meritorious that existed that, defense t o FNMA's c l a i m , he h a d a m e n t a l disability i f proven, that would a n d he prevented him from b e i n g able t o p r o p e r l y understand the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e action taken against him. The t r i a l court J a r r e t t ' s R u l e 5 5 ( c ) m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 22, 2 summarily 2010. denied 2090709 On March 15, 2010, after a writ e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f FNMA, J a r r e t t o f e x e c u t i o n had filed an e m e r g e n c y motion s e e k i n g a s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n o f t h e J a n u a r y 29, 2010, j u d g m e n t ; he a l s o moved t h e l i t e m t o r e p r e s e n t him. a motion t i t l e d motion to set court default t o a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n ad A l s o on M a r c h 1 5 , 2010, J a r r e t t "motion t o a l t e r , aside been default filed amend, o r v a c a t e d e n i a l judgment." In that motion, J a r r e t t a r g u e d t h a t he s u f f e r e d f r o m a m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t y was i n c o m p e t e n t t o manage h i s f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s and matters. trial of and legal B a s e d on t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , J a r r e t t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 29, 2010, d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was v o i d f o r want o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , he argued t h a t a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t an i n c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n i s v o i d . We n o t e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n i t s t i t l e , g o v e r n s how Ins. 707 Co., So. a motion i s i n t e r p r e t e d . 684 So. 2d 1281, 1282 2d 251, 253 Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. given the nature of the a l l e g a t i o n s 2010, m o t i o n , we 1997). In t h i s in Jarrett's i n t e r p r e t t h a t m o t i o n as one case, March 15, seeking r e l i e f f r o m t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See Weaver v. Weaver, 4 So. 3d 1171, 3 1172 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2090709 2008) (interpreting a "motion to strike" b a s i s o f a want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n Rule 60(b)(4), which a j u d g m e n t on t h e as a m o t i o n made p u r s u a n t t o provides for relief from a void 5, 2010, w h i l e t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n was still judgment). On A p r i l pending before the t r i a l trial court, Jarrett timely c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s Rule 55(c) motion. the r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s was pending i n this appealed the We n o t e that while Jarrett's appeal the t r i a l court, that, court conducted an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g on t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n ; t h a t h e a r i n g f o c u s e d on t h e m a t t e r o f J a r r e t t ' s c o m p e t e n c y . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d the Rule 60(b) motion, the t i m e FNMA's c o m p l a i n t was s e r v e d upon h i m . not appeal the d e n i a l f i n d i n g t h a t J a r r e t t was c o m p e t e n t a t of the Rule 60(b) m o t i o n ; Jarrett d i d this appeal concerns o n l y t h e d e n i a l o f h i s Rule 55(c) motion t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment. It timely set i s within filed motion the t r i a l filed court's discretion pursuant t o Rule 55(c) a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment. Rule 55(c), to grant a seeking to A l a . R. C i v . P. "That d i s c r e t i o n , a l t h o u g h b r o a d , r e q u i r e s t h e t r i a l court to b a l a n c e two c o m p e t i n g p o l i c y i n t e r e s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e f a u l t 4 2090709 judgments: the need to promote judicial economy litigant's r i g h t t o d e f e n d an a c t i o n on t h e m e r i t s . " v. B a i l e y , 950 and So. 2d 1149, 1152 a Zeller ( A l a . 2006). Our supreme c o u r t s e t f o r t h g u i d e l i n e s f o r a t r i a l consider i n b a l a n c i n g those i n t e r e s t s , court to stating: "[A] t r i a l c o u r t ' s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y authority u n d e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) s h o u l d n o t be e x e r c i s e d w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e f a c t o r s : 1) w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i s s e t a s i d e ; and 3) w h e t h e r t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s own culpable conduct." K i r t l a n d v. 600, 605 F o r t Morgan A u t h . ( A l a . 1988). Sewer S e r v . , I n c . , 524 " [ O ] u r Supreme C o u r t has So. 2d referred to t h e K i r t l a n d a n a l y s i s as a p r o c e s s i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s c a l l e d upon t o ' b a l a n c e t h e e q u i t i e s , ' 524 has e m p h a s i z e d an the paramount importance of a f f o r d i n g opportunity to attain S u m l i n v. S u m l i n , 931 In presume exercising that So. 2d a t 605, the So. an adjudication 2d 40, 48 i t s discretion, action r a t h e r t h a n by a d e f a u l t should be on the ( A l a . C i v . App. the trial decided on litigants merits." 2005) . court the should merits, judgment: " F i r s t , when e x e r c i s i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y pursuant t o Rule 5 5 ( c ) , a t r i a l judge s h o u l d s t a r t w i t h t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c a s e s s h o u l d be d e c i d e d on 5 and 2090709 the m e r i t s whenever p r a c t i c a b l e . H r i t z v. Woma C o r p . , 732 F.2d 1178, 1181 (3rd C i r . 1984). The Alabama Constitution and our past opinions c o n s t r u i n g the d e f a u l t judgment r u l e s u p p o r t the conclusion that the interest i n preserving a litigant's right to a t r i a l on the m e r i t s is p a r a m o u n t and, t h e r e f o r e , o u t w e i g h s t h e i n t e r e s t o f p r o m o t i n g j u d i c i a l economy. We have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s use o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y authority should be resolved i n favor of the d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y where t h e r e i s d o u b t as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y of the d e f a u l t judgment. J o h n s o n v. Moore, 514 So. 2d 1343 ( A l a . 1987); E l l i o t t v. S t e p h e n s , [399 So. 2d 240 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ] ; O l i v e r v. Sawyer, 359 So. 2d 368 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ; K n i g h t v. D a v i s , 356 So. 2d 156 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . We have a f f i r m a t i v e l y acknowledged the d i s f a v o r a b l e treatment afforded d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t s u c h j u d g m e n t s p r e c l u d e a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . O l i v e r v. Sawyer, s u p r a , a t 369. We have a l s o c o n s t r u e d R u l e 5 5 ( c ) as contemplating a l i b e r a l e x e r c i s e of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion in favor of s e t t i n g aside default j u d g m e n t s . Ex p a r t e I l l i n o i s C e n t r a l G u l f R.R., 514 So. 2d 1283 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , A r t i c l e 1, §§ 6 and 13, Alabama Constitution of 1901, by g u a r a n t e e i n g t h e due p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f c i t i z e n s , and A r t i c l e 1, § 10, by h o l d i n g i n v i o l a t e a p e r s o n ' s r i g h t to defend himself i n a c i v i l a c t i o n to which he i s a p a r t y , e l u c i d a t e s t h i s s t a t e ' s commitment t o protect an individual's right to attain an a d j u d i c a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s and t o a f f o r d l i t i g a n t s an opportunity to defend. We, therefore, emphatically hold that a t r i a l court, i n determining w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r t o deny a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a default judgment, should exercise its broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers w i t h l i b e r a l i t y and should b a l a n c e the e q u i t i e s of the case w i t h a s t r o n g b i a s t o w a r d a l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o have h i s day i n court." 6 2090709 K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . Sewer S e r v . , I n c . , 524 So. 2d a t 604-05. (Ala. the See a l s o 1991) trial motion, S a n d e r s v. Weaver, ("Although court with Article Constitution Rule 55(c), 583 So. 2d 1326, [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P., discretion in ruling o f 1901 on §§ I, of 6, 10, requires 1328 and that 13, a trial a Rule the court vests 55(c) Alabama exhibit a l a r g e and l i b e r a l d i s c o n t e n t a g a i n s t a d j u d i c a t i o n o f r i g h t s b y d e f a u l t . " ) ; S u m l i n v. S u m l i n , 931 So. 2d a t 49 ("In r e v i e w i n g t r i a l - c o u r t d e c i s i o n s denying r e l i e f we must t a k e appellate care court not to abdicate to ensure that from d e f a u l t judgments, our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y trial courts, as an within the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d them, a r e f a i r l y b a l a n c i n g t h e e q u i t i e s i n such cases and preserving the 'strong bias' i n favor of d e c i d i n g c a s e s on t h e i r m e r i t s . " ) . In a d d i t i o n t o other m a t t e r s , J a r r e t t ' s Rule 55(c) motion alleged that mentally Jarrett disabled at was the mentally time of disabled, the that execution m o r t g a g e , and t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f h i s d i s a b i l i t y , understood t h e e f f e c t s o f FNMA's a c t i o n a g a i n s t "necessary action required of 7 him to respond he was of the he h a d n o t him o r the and protect 2090709 himself." In t h i s 1 case, the t r i a l court denied J a r r e t t ' s Rule 55(c) motion without conducting a hearing t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d reversed when a trial court's the record considered the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . fails t o demonstrate the facts of t h i s remand t h e c a u s e motion i n l i g h t 807 c o u r t has that the t r i a l court CHO R e a l Estate I n c . v. W y a t t , 680 So. 2d 372 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; W h i t e v . W e s t m o r e l a n d , 680 So. 2d 348 Given This judgment d e n y i n g a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) m o t i o n the factors s e t f o r t h i n K i r t l a n d . Holdings, or i n d i c a t i n g So. 2 d 586 Thibodeau, case, f o r the t r i a l we ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . reverse court t h e judgment and to consider of the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . Cobb v . Jarrett's Loveless, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o T h i b o d e a u v . 10 So. 3d 529 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; C a m p b e l l v . C a m p b e l l , 910 So. 2d 1288 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . We n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l 60(b) court's r u l i n g on J a r r e t t ' s R u l e m o t i o n does n o t r e n d e r t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h i s 1 The appeal Rule 55(c) motion s t a t e s , i n p a r t : " [ J a r r e t t ] has i s [ s i c ] d i s a b l e d due t o m e n t a l l y r e t a r d a t i o n as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d b y [§] 12.05 o f [sic] the S o c i a l Security D i s a b i l i t y Evaluation. F o r t h a t r e a s o n , [ J a r r e t t ] has b e e n deemed d i s a b l e d by t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d has b e e n d i s a b l e d a t a l l times p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s mortgage made t h e b a s i s o f t h i s [ a c t i o n ] . " 8 2090709 moot. In r u l i n g on that finding p e r t a i n i n g only motion, the t r i a l to Jarrett's address the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s i n that court made a competency; i t d i d n o t ruling. J a r r e t t a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to appoint trial a guardian a d l i t e m t o r e p r e s e n t h i m . However, t h e 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 a p p o i n t a guardian ad l i t e m , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no a d v e r s e r u l i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t may c o n s i d e r upon a p p e a l . Civ. P., which appointment part: for sets forth of a guardian "The c o u r t an i n c o m p e t e n t shall F u r t h e r , R u l e 1 7 ( c ) , A l a . R. the law w i t h ad l i t e m , appoint person provides, a guardian not otherwise a c t i o n a n d may make any o t h e r orders court, i n ruling on t h e R u l e t h a t J a r r e t t was n o t i n c o m p e t e n t . has demonstrated e r r o r with regard to the i n pertinent ad l i t e m represented ... (2) i n an i t deems p r o p e r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e ... i n c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n . " trial respect We n o t e t h a t t h e 60(b) m o t i o n , determined We c a n n o t s a y t h a t to this Jarrett argument. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman Thomas, and B r y a n , J J . , concur. J., dissents, with joins. 9 writing, which Moore, J . , 2090709 THOMAS, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent court's aside P., from the j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g J e f f e r y K. the d e f a u l t judgment. motion to set aside that Federal that i t had the trial J a r r e t t ' s motion to set Civ. d e f a u l t judgment, J a r r e t t s t a t e d Mortgage purchased of I n h i s R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. the National reversal Association Jarrett's had property at represented a properly c o n d u c t e d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e and t h a t i t t h e r e f o r e had t h e r i g h t t o seek e j e c t m e n t of J a r r e t t from the p r o p e r t y . J a r r e t t then a l l e g e d t h a t " [ i ] t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e documents regarding t h i s mortgage s u b j e c t of t h i s l i t i g a t i o n w i l l r e v e a l t h a t t h e y do n o t p r o p e r l y c o n v e y t h e s u b j e c t m o r t g a g e " and that J a r r e t t " b e l i e v e s he can p r o v e " t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was and t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s i n g e n t i t y l a c k e d s t a n d i n g . states i n h i s motion A s s o c i a t i o n d i d not the suit was that, have t h e brought, then jurisdiction t o make any his and the not agree w i t h property void." I do " [ i ] f Federal the court lacked judgment a g a i n s t entry J a r r e t t then National r i g h t to possession subject [Jarrett] main o p i n i o n Mortgage at the o f d e f a u l t o f J a n u a r y 29, the wrongful time matter regarding 2010 t h a t the trial c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of J a r r e t t ' s motion v i o l a t e s the procedure 10 is set 2090709 o u t i n K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h o r i t y Sewer S e r v i c e , I n c . , 524 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 1988). As o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n B a k e r v. J o n e s , 614 2d 450, 451 So. ( A l a . 1993): "To s u p p o r t a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y must p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e of a m e r i t o r i o u s defense t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c a s e c o u l d be d e c i d e d d i f f e r e n t l y i f t r i e d on t h e m e r i t s and t h u s j u s t i f i e s r e o p e n i n g t h e c a s e so t h a t j u s t i c e can be done. K i r t l a n d . A d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y made a s h o w i n g o f a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e when a l l e g a t i o n s i n an answer o r i n a m o t i o n and i t s s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t s , i f p r o v e n a t t r i a l , would c o n s t i t u t e a complete defense to the claims a g a i n s t t h e movant o r when s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e has b e e n a d d u c e d e i t h e r by way o f a f f i d a v i t o r by some o t h e r means t o w a r r a n t s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e c a s e t o t h e jury. Kirtland. The allegations set forth to e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n s e must be more t h a n b a r e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s ; t h e y must c o u n t e r t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint with specific legal grounds s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a b a s i s o f c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . Kirtland." The d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y i n B a k e r h a d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h he had alleged: "'The j u d g m e n t i s v o i d on i t s f a c e i n t h a t the P l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t i s f i l e d i n the name o f S y l v i a J o n e s . The n o t e and m o r t g a g e i n q u e s t i o n and s u e d upon was g r a n t e d t o F r i d a y , I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n , [and n o t ] t o P l a i n t i f f , S y l v i a Jones. S y l v i a Jones i s n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t n o r i s she t h e c o r r e c t p a r t y and she does n o t own t h e n o t e and m o r t g a g e . ' " 11 2090709 Baker, 614 So. 2d a t 451. a l l e g a t i o n as b e i n g a meritorious Our supreme c o u r t rejected this i n s u f f i c i e n t under K i r t l a n d t o e s t a b l i s h defense. Id. The B a k e r c o u r t stated: "Baker's c o n c l u s i o n , i f proven at t r i a l , would comprise a complete defense t o the a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i m ; h o w e v e r , he f a i l e d t o s u b m i t any f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r h i s c l a i m s . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no a f f i d a v i t s o r supporting evidence to s u b s t a n t i a t e the bare l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t S y l v i a J o n e s d i d n o t own t h e n o t e and m o r t g a g e . I n h i s p l e a d i n g , B a k e r m e r e l y b a s e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e f a c t t h a t J o n e s h e r s e l f had n o t o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t h e r c o r p o r a t i o n , F r i d a y , I n c . , had a s s i g n e d t h e n o t e t o h e r ; however, B a k e r n e v e r q u e s t i o n e d t h e a s s i g n m e n t and n e v e r r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e u n t i l he f i l e d h i s s e c o n d m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment. I t i s the burden o f t h e movant, n o t t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y , t o p r o v i d e a 'definite recitation of f a c t s ' to support the m o v a n t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . K i r t l a n d . The movant must f i r s t s u p p o r t h i s own c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h f a c t s before the burden s h i f t s t o the opposing p a r t y t o o f f e r evidence i n r e b u t t a l . In t h i s case, Baker f a i l e d to provide the f a c t s necessary to e s t a b l i s h a meritorious defense." Id. More r e c e n t l y , o u r supreme c o u r t has a g a i n r e i t e r a t e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t " t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y has t h e i n i t i a l burden of demonstrating the e x i s t e n c e of the three K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . " C a r r o l l v. W i l l i a m s , 6 So. 3d 463, 467 ( A l a . 2008). Although the d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y i n C a r r o l l had a l s o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a l a c k of p r e j u d i c e to the defendant 12 and a l a c k of h i s own 2090709 culpable conduct, assertion that the court did state he has a m e r i t o r i o u s that defense "Carroll's to Williams's c l a i m i s n o t h i n g more t h a n a b a r e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n u n s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t or other evidence." 3d a t 468. had been C a r r o l l v. W i l l i a m s , 6 So. Despite the f a c t t h a t C a r r o l l ' s Rule 55(c) motion denied by operation determined that C a r r o l l ' s of failure law, the C a r r o l l court t o meet h i s i n i t i a l burden under K i r t l a n d o b v i a t e d t h e need f o r t h e t r i a l held a hearing. c o u r t t o have Id. B e c a u s e o f o u r supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n C a r r o l l a n d Baker, I cannot court's t h e main o p i n i o n that d e n i a l of J a r r e t t ' s motion t o s e t aside judgment should satisfied Carroll agree w i t h be r e v e r s e d . his initial court I do n o t t h i n k burden under K i r t l a n d . determined that the trial the d e f a u l t that Jarrett Because a d e n i a l of a motion the to set a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w may be a f f i r m e d when t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y fails t o meet h i s o r h e r initial burden under K i r t l a n d , I would a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of J a r r e t t ' s motion. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s . 13

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.