Premier Health Management, Inc., Gulf Coast Financial Associates, Inc., and Merchants Adjustment Service v. Hon. Barber Sherling

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/23/2012 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, 2011-2012 2101064 Premier H e a l t h Management, Inc., G u l f Coast F i n a n c i a l A s s o c i a t e s , Inc., and Merchants Adjustment S e r v i c e v. Hon. Barber S h e r l i n g Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-11-279) Court MOORE, J u d g e . P r e m i e r H e a l t h Management, I n c . Coast F i n a n c i a l A s s o c i a t e s , Inc. Adjustment S e r v i c e ("Premier H e a l t h " ) , Gulf ("Gulf C o a s t " ) , a n d M e r c h a n t s ("Merchants") a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e 2101064 Mobile C i r c u i t Court petition to f o r a w r i t o f mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h e c i r c u i t direct Court ("the c i r c u i t c o u r t " ) d e n y i n g t h e i r j o i n t t h e Judge B a r b e r S h e r l i n g of the Mobile court District ("the d i s t r i c t c o u r t " ) t o g r a n t d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s i n 12 separate cases. We affirm. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y In 2010 Merchants and 2011, P r e m i e r (hereinafter Health, collectively Gulf referred Coast, to and as " t h e p l a i n t i f f s " ) f i l e d 12 d i f f e r e n t c o m p l a i n t s i n t h e s m a l l - c l a i m s d i v i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t 12 d i f f e r e n t individual defendants, 1 asserting that each defendant owed p l a i n t i f f s amounts due on u n p a i d a c c o u n t s , i n c l u d i n g c o u r t c o s t s , and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . plaintiffs Premier requested Health certified personal requested mail. I n each case interest, I n most o f t h e c a s e s , t h e service, service of the b u t , i n one on B r a n d o n i n which Broadwater t h e M o b i l e County S h e r i f f ' s Department with of the d i s t r i c t indicating that a court a return of the complaint a n d summons person than delivered to sometimes describing other that person's 2 by p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e had been r e q u e s t e d , the c l e r k case, had been t h e named familial filed service hand- defendant, or other 2101064 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the defendant. return of signed as t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e summons and c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t mentioning service In the Broadwater case, the her indicated that familial or "Lorraine agency Broadwater" relationship had to the defendant. In each c a s e , a f t e r the r e t u r n of s e r v i c e had been and the t i m e had expired applicable p l a i n t i f f judgment. f o r the filing moved t h e d i s t r i c t court answer, for a the default The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d e a c h m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d that i t lacked personal j u r i s d i c t i o n lack o f an filed of s e r v i c e . The district o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t due t o court reasoned that service must be a c c o m p l i s h e d i n s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 4, A l a . R. Civ. P., and that the plaintiffs to present s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o o f t h a t the p e r s o n s t h a t had r e c e i v e d service f e l l w i t h i n the scope of t h a t r u l e . t h a t the r e t u r n s had failed The p l a i n t i f f s countered of s e r v i c e c o n s t i t u t e d prima f a c i e evidence o f s e r v i c e and t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d n o t , on i t s own, challenge those returns of service. r e p l i e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e h o l d i n g s R e s i d e n t i a l Ass'n, McDermott v. Tabb, 18 So. 32 So. 3d 959 2d 3 1 The district court i n D e n n i s v. S t i l l Waters ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . 2009), 2009), a return and of 2101064 s e r v i c e p r o v e s s e r v i c e o n l y on t h e i n d i v i d u a l named as been served and does not prove that c a p a c i t y t o a c c e p t s e r v i c e on b e h a l f district court may raise the that person of its own has the that the lack o f a n o t h e r and issue having of j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu. The plaintiffs filed a petition w i t h the c i r c u i t c o u r t r e q u e s t i n g the district petition court to originally enter related mandamus the c i r c u i t c o u r t to d i r e c t the to f o r a w r i t of default only judgments. three cases, The but the p l a i n t i f f s s u b s e q u e n t l y amended t h e i r p e t i t i o n t o i n c l u d e a l l 12 c a s e s . The c i r c u i t court denied judgment, explaining properly in properly served that the the p e t i t i o n i n a w r i t t e n district i n v e s t i g a t i n g whether and that the the district court defendants court determined t h a t the r e t u r n s of s e r v i c e d i d not p r o v e t h a t t h e p e r s o n s r e c e i v i n g s e r v i c e had do so under Rule judgment t o t h i s 4. The plaintiffs Ex parte had been correctly satisfactorily the timely had acted capacity appealed to that court. Standard of In had A.S., A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t 3 So. 3d stated: 4 Review 842, 845 ( A l a . 2008), the 2101064 " A l t h o u g h a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a p r o p e r avenue b y w h i c h t o c h a l l e n g e a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r , an a p p e a l , n o t a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t of mandamus, i s t h e p r o p e r avenue f o r c h a l l e n g i n g a c i r c u i t court's d i s p o s i t i o n of a p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t o f mandamus. See § 12-22-6, A l a . Code 1975 ('Appeals may be t a k e n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t s of c e r t i o r a r i , supersedeas, quo w a r r a n t o , mandamus, p r o h i b i t i o n , i n j u n c t i o n o t h e r r e m e d i a l w r i t s as p r o v i d e d by t h e Alabama R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . . . . ' ) . See a l s o E x p a r t e R o p c h o c k , 510 So. 2d 855, 856 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987) ('"Appeals may be t a k e n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t from t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t s o f ... mandamus ... as p r o v i d e d b y t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . " A judgment d i s m i s s i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a p p e a l a b l e . ' ) . " (Footnote omitted.) Thus, t h e p l a i n t i f f s the judgment d e n y i n g t h e i r p e t i t i o n p r o p e r l y appealed f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. On a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g a p e t i t i o n of fora writ mandamus, t h i s c o u r t a p p l i e s t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a s that applicable i n the c i r c u i t court. "As an i n i t i a l m a t t e r , we n o t e t h a t t h i s c a s e i s an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus. "'Mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy r e q u i r i n g a showing t h a t t h e r e i s : "'(1) a clear l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon the respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d jurisdiction of the court.'" Ex p a r t e 5 2101064 L e i g e b e r , 623 So. 2 d 1068, 1071 ( A l a . 1993) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e A l f a b , I n c . , 586 So. 2 d 889, 891 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . B e c a u s e i t i s an extraordinary remedy, the standard of r e v i e w i s whether t h e r e has been a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . E x p a r t e S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 67 4 So. 2 d 1274 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . ' " C i t y o f Birmingham P l a n n i n g Comm'n v . J o h n s o n R e a l t y Co., 688 So. 2 d 8 7 1 , 872 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997). Furthermore, i n an a p p e a l from a trial c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h i s c o u r t must i n d u l g e a l l r e a s o n a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n s i n f a v o r o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e judgment a p p e a l e d f r o m . P e r r y v . S t a t e Dep't o f C o r r . , 694 So. 2d 24, 25 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . " C h a n d l e r v. C i t y o f V e s t a v i a H i l l s P l a n n i n g 959 & Z o n i n g Comm'n, So. 2 d 1124, 1128 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . Discussion A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t t h e district clerk court of the d i s t r i c t indicating than has i s s u e d court to reject i n s t r u c t i n g the any r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e arguably t h e i s s u e o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f s u c h an o r d e r i n their for a writ t o submit Although other the p l a i n t i f f s petition failed order t h a t s e r v i c e was p e r f e c t e d on an i n d i v i d u a l t h e named d e f e n d a n t . raised a standing o f mandamus admissible i n the c i r c u i t evidence indicating d i s t r i c t c o u r t had adopted such a p r o c e d u r e . 6 court, they that the Their assertions 2101064 on a p p e a l and the in their petition c i r c u i t court Realty, Inc. 2009). We s u c h an not ruling first decline, 29 So. 3d evidence. therefore, to 894, 897 See Accent address (Ala. Civ. the App. propriety of p l a i n t i f f s next argue t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n that s e r v i c e on d i d not Snopl, constitute order. The v. do f o r a w r i t o f mandamus b e f o r e the d i s t r i c t court i t s own and could raise i n f i n d i n g t h a t the lack returns s a t i s f a c t o r i l y p r o v e s e r v i c e u n d e r R u l e 4. argument, we agree with the circuit court of of proper service As to that d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y i n r a i s i n g the the the issue o f p r o p e r s e r v i c e b e f o r e r u l i n g on t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n s f o r a default judgment. As the circuit court stated in judgment: "It is axiomatic that proper service is e s s e n t i a l to the e x i s t e n c e of j u r i s d i c t i o n over a d e f e n d a n t and any j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d i n t h e a b s e n c e [ o f ] p r o p e r s e r v i c e i s v o i d . S a t t e r f i e l d v. W i n s t o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; 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 , I n c . , 18 So. 3d 959, 961 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). I t i s l i k e w i s e w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a c o u r t has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o r e v i e w m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , e v e n ex mero motu, so as t o e n s u r e t h e v a l i d i t y o f i t s orders. 'Jurisdictional matters are of such m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero motu.' Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , See a l s o , H o r n v. Dunn 7 its 2101064 B r o t h e r s , I n c . , 79 So. 2d 11 ( A l a . 1 9 5 5 ) ; A r v i n N. Am. A u t o . , I n c . v. R o d g e r s , [71 So. 3d 669 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ] ; S i n g l e t o n v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. l 9 9 8 ) ; W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s Mfg. Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . "The power t o r e v i e w , ex mero motu and p r i o r t o j u d g m e n t , a m o t i o n f o r d e f a u l t (and i t s s u p p o r t i n g documentation) i s a necessary extension of a c o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t powers t o r e v i e w j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s a t any time and the f a c t that proper service i s necessary in order to invoke the court's j u r i s d i c t i o n . I n f a c t , A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have e x e r c i s e d t h i s power r e g a r d i n g s e r v i c e on a p p e a l . I n S t a t e v. G u r l e y , [217 A l a . 666,] 117 So. 297 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d i s m i s s e d an a p p e a l upon i t s f i n d i n g , ex mero motu, t h a t no p r o p e r s e r v i c e o f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r e c o r d . See a l s o , M i d - S t a t e Homes, I n c . v. R o b e r t s , 257 So. 2d 333, 334 ( A l a . 1972) ( d i s m i s s i n g a p p e a l upon f i n d i n g , ex mero motu, o f s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t s , i n c l u d i n g l a c k of s e r v i c e of the n o t i c e of a p p e a l ) . The i n h e r e n t p o w e r s r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e s e c a s e s t o , ex mero motu, r e v i e w the record to determine i f s e r v i c e was p r o p e r l y made before proceeding t o judgment a r e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the a c t i o n s taken by [the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ] . " We h o l d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g that the d i s t r i c t c o u r t had a c t e d w i t h i n i t s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y i n unilaterally r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e o f , and a s c e r t a i n i n g w h e t h e r , p r o p e r s e r v i c e had been o b t a i n e d We also hold that the finding that the d i s t r i c t service had n o t been p e r f e c t e d on t h e circuit court 8 court had on defendants. d i d not correctly err in found the defendants, that but f o r 2101064 reasons different judgment. returns than those The p a r t i e s of service stated argue i n the c i r c u i t court's a t l e n g t h as t o whether t h e satisfied Rule 4; however, s p e a k i n g , R u l e 4 does n o t a p p l y t o t h e s e c a s e s . generally A l l of these c a s e s were f i l e d i n t h e s m a l l - c l a i m s d i v i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and, t h e r e f o r e , a r e governed by the s e r v i c e rules set out i n t h e Alabama S m a l l C l a i m s R u l e s . Rule pertinent D o f t h e Alabama Small Claims Rules provides, i n part: "Unless t h e p l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t s s e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l pursuant t o Rule [ 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ] o f the Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e o r o b t a i n s an o r d e r f r o m t h e c o u r t a l l o w i n g some o t h e r p e r s o n t o make s e r v i c e upon a d e f e n d a n t , t h e summons a n d a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t shall be s e r v e d upon a resident or in-state defendant by t h e s h e r i f f , a t h i s e l e c t i o n , by e i t h e r o f t h e f o l l o w i n g methods: "(a) p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e ; o r "(b) b y p l a c i n g t h e summons a n d a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n an e n v e l o p e a d d r e s s e d t o t h e p e r s o n t o be s e r v e d w i t h t h e r e t u r n a d d r e s s o f t h e s h e r i f f shown on t h e e n v e l o p e , and p l a c i n g t h e s e a l e d e n v e l o p e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l as c e r t i f i e d m a i l w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e r e o n and i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e delivering postal employee t o show t o whom delivered, date of delivery and address where d e l i v e r e d on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t . When t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be s e r v e d i s a n a t u r a l p e r s o n , t h e s h e r i f f s h a l l also request r e s t r i c t e d delivery, unless otherwise o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . 9 2101064 "Where t h e s h e r i f f e l e c t s t o p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e a d e f e n d a n t , he s h a l l l o c a t e t h e p e r s o n t o be s e r v e d and s h a l l d e l i v e r t h e summons a n d a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t and any accompanying documents t o t h e p e r s o n t o be s e r v e d . When t h e summons a n d a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t have b e e n d e l i v e r e d , the s h e r i f f s e r v i n g p r o c e s s s h a l l e n d o r s e t h a t f a c t on a c o p y o f t h e summons a n d r e t u r n i t t o t h e c l e r k who s h a l l make t h e a p p r o p r i a t e e n t r y on t h e d o c k e t s h e e t o f the a c t i o n . The r e t u r n o f t h e s h e r i f f serving p r o c e s s i n t h e manner d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n s h a l l be prima f a c i e evidence o f such f a c t . II "Where t h e s h e r i f f e l e c t s t o s e r v e t h e summons and a c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l , t h e s h e r i f f s h a l l e n d o r s e t h a t f a c t on a c o p y o f t h e summons a n d r e t u r n i t t o t h e c l e r k who s h a l l make an a p p r o p r i a t e e n t r y on t h e d o c k e t s h e e t o f t h e a c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the s h e r i f f s h a l l immediately forward t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t when r e c e i v e d b y h i m t o t h e c l e r k who s h a l l e n t e r t h e d a t e o f d e l i v e r y t o a d e f e n d a n t shown on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t on t h e d o c k e t s h e e t o f the action, and the time f o r answering by a d e f e n d a n t s h a l l r u n f r o m t h e d a t e o f d e l i v e r y as evidenced by the r e t u r n r e c e i p t . II "In a l l cases wherein the p l a i n t i f f f i l e s a written request with the c l e r k f o r s e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l , s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s s h a l l be made b y the clerk, who s h a l l follow the procedure as p r o v i d e d i n Rule [ 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ] of the Rules of C i v i l Procedure f o r s e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l . " 1 R u l e D a c t u a l l y r e f e r s t o R u l e 4.1(c) o f t h e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e have b e e n amended a n d t h a t t h e r e i s no l o n g e r a R u l e 4.1(c) i n t h o s e R u l e s . F o r m e r R u l e 4.1(c) h a s b e e n 1 10 2101064 P u r s u a n t t o R u l e D, p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e c a n be made o n l y b y locating the person that person. t o be s e r v e d a n d d e l i v e r i n g process to R u l e D d o e s n o t p r o v i d e f o r p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e on an i n d i v i d u a l o t h e r t h a n t h e named d e f e n d a n t . In that regard, Rule D d i f f e r s f r o m R u l e 4, w h i c h a l l o w s p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e on an defendant individual by h a n d - d e l i v e r i n g p r o c e s s to the named d e f e n d a n t o r "by l e a v i n g a c o p y o f t h e summons a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s d w e l l i n g house o r u s u a l p l a c e o f abode with some person of suitable age a n d d i s c r e t i o n then r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n o r by d e l i v e r i n g a c o p y o f t h e summons a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t 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 service of process." R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. D by a l l o w i n g defendant, service B e c a u s e R u l e 4 e x p a n d s on R u l e on i n d i v i d u a l s t h e two r u l e s other are inconsistent, than t h e named and therefore, i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a n a l y s i s , we have a p p l i e d R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) . 11 Thus, i n o u r 2101064 under Rule N o f t h e Alabama Small Claims Rules, 2 Rule D prevails. It i s undisputed plaintiffs did that, i n a l l 11 c a s e s sought p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e , i n which the s h e r i f f ' s n o t d e l i v e r p r o c e s s t o t h e named d e f e n d a n t d e l i v e r e d p r o c e s s t o some o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . whether that whether the returns proved proper service would of service have complied service would under Rule s e r v i c e d i d n o t conform department but, rather, We do n o t d e c i d e with have Rule 4, o r satisfactorily 4, b u t we do h o l d t h a t t h e t o t h e p l a i n terms o f Rule D and t h a t the r e t u r n s o f s e r v i c e c l e a r l y evidenced t h a t Although the c i r c u i t the noncompliance. c o u r t d i d n o t r e l y on t h e A l a b a m a S m a l l Claims Rules i n denying the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h i s c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on a g r o u n d not relied legal upon b y t h a t ground.'" 2 court, so l o n g a s i t i s "a A t k i n s v. S t a t e , 'valid 16 So. 3d 792, 797 ( A l a . Rule N provides: "The Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure as modified f o r a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n the d i s t r i c t courts s h a l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o s m a l l c l a i m s c o u r t c a s e s when n e c e s s a r y t o s e r v e t h e ends o f j u s t i c e a n d when t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , as m o d i f i e d , a r e not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h these s m a l l c l a i m s r u l e s . " 12 2101064 Civ. App. 2009) (quoting L i b e r t y Nat'l Life I n s . Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 court's regard (Ala. 2003)). denial therefore affirm of the p e t i t i o n t o t h e 11 c a s e s personal We that for a writ involved the c i r c u i t o f mandamus w i t h service o f p r o c e s s by service. With regard t o the Broadwater c a s e , i n w h i c h s e r v i c e was a t t e m p t e d v i a c e r t i f i e d m a i l , we l o o k a g a i n t o R u l e D, provides certified Procedure, defendant that, unless mail pursuant i t i s at by the p l a i n t i f f either to requests t h e Alabama the s h e r i f f ' s personal service or service Rules election which to of Civil serve certified by a mail. P r e m i e r H e a l t h a s s e r t s on a p p e a l t h a t i t r e q u e s t e d s e r v i c e on Broadwater in b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l , b u t t h a t r e q u e s t does n o t a p p e a r t h e r e c o r d , so we c a n n o t discern whether Premier Health r e q u e s t e d c e r t i f i e d - m a i l s e r v i c e u n d e r R u l e 4 o r u n d e r R u l e D. I f t h e r e q u e s t was p u r s u a n t t o R u l e D, t h e s h e r i f f c o u l d have p r o p e r l y s e r v e d B r o a d w a t e r b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l o n l y t h r o u g h " r e s t r i c t e d d e l i v e r y , " w h i c h means d e l i v e r y c o u l d be made o n l y "'to the addressee been s p e c i f i c a l l y o r t o an a g e n t of the addressee who h a s a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g by t h e addressee t o 13 2101064 receive 900 h i s mail.'" ( A l a . 1981) 4.1(c), Ex p a r t e (quoting Shuttleworth, 410 So. 2d 896, C o m m i t t e e Comments A l a . R. C i v . P., s e e s u p r a n o t e t o former 1). Rule I f the request was made u n d e r R u l e 4, s e r v i c e b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l would "be deemed c o m p l e t e a n d t h e t i m e f o r a n s w e r i n g s h a l l r u n f r o m t h e d a t e o f d e l i v e r y t o t h e named a d d r e s s e e o r t h e a d d r e s s e e ' s a g e n t as e v i d e n c e d b y s i g n a t u r e on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t . W i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h i s subdivision, 'agent' means a p e r s o n or e n t i t y s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d by t h e addressee t o r e c e i v e the a d d r e s s e e ' s m a i l and t o d e l i v e r t h a t m a i l t o t h e addressee. Such agent's authority shall be conclusively established when the addressee a c k n o w l e d g e s a c t u a l r e c e i p t o f t h e summons a n d complaint or the court determines that the evidence proves the addressee d i d a c t u a l l y receive the summons a n d c o m p l a i n t i n t i m e t o a v o i d a d e f a u l t . R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. t h a t any p e r s o n a c c e p t i n g s e r v i c e on b e h a l f d e f e n d a n t must be an a u t h o r i z e d two rules differ Although both rules require o f an i n d i v i d u a l agent of t h a t defendant, the on t h e means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t agency. Regardless of t h a t d i f f e r e n c e , Premier Health argues a return of service from the p o s t a l a u t h o r i t i e s presents p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h a t s e r v i c e h a s b e e n made on an agent. We d i s a g r e e . R u l e D does n o t p r o v i d e defendant constitutes 14 prima a authorized that a receipt from the p o s t a l a u t h o r i t i e s s i g n e d by a person other individual that than the f a c i e evidence that 2101064 such person has t h e w r i t t e n behalf of the defendant. authority to accept service on Rule D merely p r o v i d e s t h a t the time f o r f i l i n g an answer s h a l l r u n f r o m t h e d a t e t h e s h e r i f f files a r e t u r n r e c e i p t w i t h t h e c l e r k s h o w i n g d e l i v e r y o f s e r v i c e on the defendant. Likewise, Rule 4(i)(2)(C) provides that a g e n t ' s a u t h o r i t y may be c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d an only "when t h e a d d r e s s e e a c k n o w l e d g e s a c t u a l r e c e i p t o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t o r t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s that the evidence proves the addressee d i d a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t i n t i m e t o a v o i d a default." T h a t r u l e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t h a t a mere s i g n a t u r e receipt constitutes prima facie evidence a u t h o r i t y t o a c c e p t s e r v i c e as p a r t o f t h a t Under written either rule, or s p e c i f i c receipt r e f l e c t s only unless authority an a g e n c y i s noted on a r e t u r n of agency or agency. r e l a t i o n s h i p and thereon, a return t h a t t h e p e r s o n who s i g n e d t h e r e c e i p t accepted d e l i v e r y of the process a t the address date and time s p e c i f i e d . a n d on t h e I n Duncan v . S.N., 907 So. 2d 428, 432 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the s e r v i c e o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n t h a t c a s e d i d n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 4, n o t e d : " [ T ] h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p e r s o n who s i g n e d t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t was 'specifically 15 2101064 a u t h o r i z e d b y [Duncan] t o r e c e i v e [ h i s ] m a i l a n d t o d e l i v e r t h a t m a i l t o [him].' Rule 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e b o x m a r k e d ' a g e n t ' on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t was l e f t b l a n k . " In the present returned like case, the c e r t i f i e d - m a i l to the c l e r k signed return by " L o r r a i n e r e c e i p t was Broadwater" and, i n Duncan, t h e b o x m a r k e d " a g e n t " on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t was l e f t b l a n k . I n an a f f i d a v i t w i t h Premier Health Lorraine Broadwater Broadwater presented and t h a t some resided they evidence, evidence were somehow exhibit, indicating a t t h e same a d d r e s s Premier Health d i dnot present facie a supporting that as Brandon related. However, a n y e v i d e n c e -- n o t e v e n p r i m a much l e s s c o n c l u s i v e evidence -- i n d i c a t i n g t h a t L o r r a i n e Broadwater had the s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y , w r i t t e n or otherwise, to accept service by mail for Brandon Broadwater. "'[S]trict compliance with the rules regarding s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s i s r e q u i r e d . ' Ex p a r t e P a t e , 673 So. 2d [427,] 429 [(Ala. 1995)]. '[D]efault judgments a r e n o t f a v o r e d by t h e c o u r t s , and [ t h e ] d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t [a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t ] s h o u l d be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y when 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 t h e r e o f . ' C o l v i n v . C o l v i n , 628 So. 2d 802, 803 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . See a l s o Montgomery C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . v. A d d i s o n , 3 So. 3d 885, 886 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s h a d n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y made on s c h o o l b o a r d b e c a u s e no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s e r v e d was an a g e n t o f 16 2101064 t h e s c h o o l b o a r d 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 ; as a r e s u l t , t h i s court concluded that the t r i a l court had e r r e d i n d e n y i n g s c h o o l b o a r d ' s motion t o s e t aside d e f a u l t judgment)." Johnson v. H a l l , 10 So. 3d 1 0 3 1 , 1037 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . B a s e d on J o h n s o n , Duncan, a n d t h e l a n g u a g e o f R u l e D a n d R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , we c o n c l u d e t h a t P r e m i e r H e a l t h h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t i t has a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o a d e f a u l t judgment i n t h e Broadwater case. Because t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s a u t h o r i t y i n r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e o f p r o p e r s e r v i c e and p r o p e r l y determined Broadwater that the agency and had n o t been p r o v e n , denied the p e t i t i o n a f f i r m the c i r c u i t authority the c i r c u i t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. of court We, Lorraine correctly therefore, c o u r t ' s judgment d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h e B r o a d w a t e r case. Conclusion Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we conclude that the c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h regard t o each o f t h e 12 c a s e s b r o u g h t d i v i s i o n of the d i s t r i c t i n the small-claims court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 17 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.