Curtis Austin v. Comelia Austin

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/08/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2012-2013 2120102 Curtis Austin v. Comelia A u s t i n Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-04-421.01) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Curtis Austin ("the f a t h e r " ) and Comelia m o t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d i n J u l y 2004. incorporated an a g r e e m e n t A u s t i n ("the The j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e o f t h e p a r t i e s , a n d , among t h i n g s , t h e agreement awarded t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l other custody 2120102 of t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n , awarded t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the support children, i n the amount o f $400 f a t h e r t o be r e s p o n s i b l e expenses incurred mother, who petition was not paid the April child and child ordered the time I n December acting pro se, of the father's 2011, filed a the form child-support s u p p o r t as p r e v i o u s l y of service served ordered. contained with According i n the to record on the mother's p e t i t i o n on 2012. 26, 2012, t h e m o t h e r moved t o have t h e m a t t e r for a t r i a l . scheduling trial t o pay f o r h a l f of the noncovered medical modification return On A p r i l set that father p e r month, the c h i l d r e n . t h e f a t h e r was 5, the The p e t i t i o n d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d signed appeal, a seeking obligation. by ordered order In on May response, 11, 2012, t h a t t o be h e l d on June 21, 2012. scheduling the t r i a l court entered s e t the a c t i o n Notice o r d e r was s e n t t o t h e m o t h e r . a for a of the entry of the However, the record does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t n o t i c e was s e n t t o t h e f a t h e r , who had y e t t o answer t h e mother's p e t i t i o n . On attorney, May 22, 2012, the mother, who had f i l e d an amended p e t i t i o n a g a i n s e e k i n g 2 employed an modification 2120102 of the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n , a l l e g i n g that the f a t h e r had not p a i d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t 2011 and that the father had obligation after not p a i d his half June of the noncovered m e d i c a l expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e c h i l d r e n . Like t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n , t h e amended p e t i t i o n s o u g h t an i n c r e a s e i n t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , t h e amended petition f u r t h e r sought p a s t - d u e c h i l d s u p p o r t and i n t e r e s t , p a s t - d u e n o n c o v e r e d m e d i c a l expenses t h a t had been i n c u r r e d by the not c h i l d r e n , a n d an a t t o r n e y specifically allegations mention contained f o r contempt a g a i n s t P. (stating that fee. the The amended p e t i t i o n d i d word contempt, i n t h e amended p e t i t i o n the father. pleadings but the stated a claim See R u l e 8 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . "shall be so c o n s t r u e d s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e " ) ; Waters v. J o l l y , as t o do 582 So. 2d 1048, 1056 ( A l a . 1991) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , u n d e r R u l e 8 ( f ) , " [ a ] l l t h a t i s required is [defendant] that of the the complaint plaintiffs' m o t h e r ' s amended p e t i t i o n was f i l e d the t r i a l she was adequately claims"). to do by Rule 15(a), ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a p a r t y must s e e k l e a v e 3 the Although the l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s s e t t i n g , t h e mother d i d n o t seek l e a v e required notify before o f c o u r t , as A l a . R. of court C i v . P. t o amend a 2120102 pleading first i f t h e amendment comes l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e trial The setting). trial however, was the held father, as who scheduled had never on in the 2012; mother's The t r i a l court o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and e x p e n s e s owed by t h e f a t h e r , i n c r e a s i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s child-support mother 21, a j u d g m e n t on June 29, 2012, f i n d i n g t h e f a t h e r t o be contempt, c a l c u l a t i n g the a r r e a r a g e s medical June answered p e t i t i o n o r amended p e t i t i o n , d i d n o t a p p e a r . entered the o b l i g a t i o n t o $1,115 a costs judgment o f $2 67, a t t o r n e y a $1,500 a t t o r n e y fee. 1 p e r month, awarding the and a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s I n t h a t judgment, t h e trial c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o u l d p u r g e h i m s e l f o f c o n t e m p t by paying $7,900, plus interest. On t h e same d a t e , the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r be p l a c e d i n t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y j a i l u n t i l the t r i a l court. On J u l y 15, 2012, t h e f a t h e r , who as a f u r t h e r order of result of the order of h a d been i n c a r c e r a t e d attachment, f i l e d a motion T h e June 29, 2012, j u d g m e n t a c t u a l l y a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r $303 i n c o s t s ; h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 5, 2012, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., c o r r e c t i n g a c l e r i c a l e r r o r and r e d u c i n g t h e amount o f c o s t s a w a r d e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t t o $267. 1 4 2120102 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. the trial order. court's In 2 release from postjudgment 2012. the June same 29, 2012, motion, incarceration. C i v . P., the judgment father The 3 seeking vacation m o t i o n on J u l y 16, 2012, and sought father of attachment immediate amended and a g a i n on A u g u s t W i t h h i s t h i r d amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e his 1, father p r e s e n t e d h i s own a f f i d a v i t and t h e a f f i d a v i t o f h i s e m p l o y e r , Billy Gaines, the owner of a barber salon; the father's T h e f a t h e r r e l i e d on R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., i n h i s m o t i o n , b u t , b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was, i n e f f e c t , a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , see T r i p l e D T r u c k i n g , I n c . v. T r i Sands, I n c . , 840 So. 2d 869, 871 n.2 ( A l a . 2002) ( c o n s t r u i n g a judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of a p l a i n t i f f a f t e r the failure of the defendants t o appear as a default j u d g m e n t ) , we c o n s t r u e h i s m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t as 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 u n d e r Rule 55(c). See R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So. 3d 747, 753 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( t r e a t i n g a m o t i o n s t y l e d as a R u l e 59 m o t i o n as a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) m o t i o n when t h e m o t i o n s o u g h t " t h e t y p e o f r e l i e f p r o p e r l y sought i n a motion f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 5 ( c ) , " which permits a t r i a l court to s e t aside a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t ) ; see a l s o E n g l e b e r t v. E n g l e b e r t , 791 So. 2d 975, (Ala. C i v . App. 2000) ( c o n s t r u i n g a m o t i o n f i l e d w i t h i n 30 days o f t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t as a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) m o t i o n as o p p o s e d t o a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n ) ; s e e , g e n e r a l l y , Ex p a r t e M u t u a l Sav. L i f e I n s . Co., 765 So. 2d 649, 650 ( A l a . 1998) ( s t a t i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t " l o o k s t o t h e e s s e n c e o f a m o t i o n , n o t j u s t t o i t s t i t l e , t o d e t e r m i n e how t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d be t r e a t e d u n d e r o u r R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e " ) . 2 The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the f a t h e r u l t i m a t e l y sought a w r i t of habeas corpus from a d i f f e r e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t j u d g e , w h i c h was g r a n t e d . 3 5 2120102 affidavit stated that he had been terminated employment w i t h A l a b a m a Power Company i n June 2011, a f f i d a v i t s s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s income was The t r i a l and 4 his and both $700 p e r month. c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n , i t was 2012. from The deemed d e n i e d father filed by o p e r a t i o n of law a n o t i c e of appeal on O c t o b e r 15, on 22, October 2012. On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r makes s e v e r a l a r g u m e n t s . argues t h a t the t r i a l trial" because, he He c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t " g r a n t i n g him says, he was never served with first a new the We n o t e t h a t t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m d e t a i l s h e e t r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d i s p o s e d o f by s e p a r a t e o r d e r on J u l y 31, 2012. However, no s e p a r a t e o r d e r a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , and, a f t e r a r e q u e s t f r o m t h i s c o u r t ' s c l e r k ' s o f f i c e , the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C l e r k s e a r c h e d i t s r e c o r d s and f o u n d no s e p a r a t e o r d e r . Thus, b e c a u s e we have no o r d e r i n d i c a t i n g w h e t h e r t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was g r a n t e d o r d e n i e d , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was n o t d i s p o s e d o f by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on J u l y 31, 2012, o r on any other date. 4 M o r e o v e r , R u l e 59.1 p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t i s n o t r u l e d on by t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s i s deemed d e n i e d a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 90-day p e r i o d . The 9 0 t h day f o l l o w i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s f i l i n g o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on J u l y 15, 2012, was S a t u r d a y , O c t o b e r 13, 2012. T h e r e f o r e , t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d on Monday, O c t o b e r 15, 2012. See F i r s t A l a b a m a S t a t e Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , and R i c h b u r g v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; see a l s o W i l l i a m s o n v. F o u r t h Ave. S u p e r m a r k e t , I n c . , 12 So. 3d 1200, 1203-04 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . 6 2120102 scheduling order. subject-matter filing a He n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r p a i d o n l y one f e e a n d b e c a u s e , he c o n t e n d s , a c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n modification pleading. The improperly petition father allowed t o be modification which leave argues petition then the tried petition cannot included argues amended despite was be that the evidence the t r i a l modification the f a c t and that amended w i t h o u t was r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 1 5 ( a ) . that i n the in same court contempt the mother's leave Further, submitted and of court, the father support of h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he was u n a b l e t o p a y h i s child-support in o b l i g a t i o n and, t h u s , contempt. properly served Finally, with t h a t he c o u l d n o t be h e l d the father the argues mother's c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e he was a p a r t y that amended he was n o t petition; he i n default for failure t o a p p e a r a n d b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r ' s amended p e t i t i o n asserted a new c l a i m a g a i n s t h i m , t h e m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 5 ( a ) , Ala. to R. C i v . P., t o s e r v e t h e amended p e t i t i o n Rule certified 4, A l a . R. C i v . P., b y e i t h e r mail. 7 on h i m p u r s u a n t personal service or 2120102 We first consider the f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t the trial c o u r t l a c k e d 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 because the mother's amended p e t i t i o n c o u p l e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n w i t h a c o n t e m p t action. The f a t h e r , r e l y i n g on O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k No. 375 So. 2d 1066 properly file ( A l a . 1979), argues t h a t the mother f a i l e d t o institute her contempt action her contempt a c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y fee. Although i t appears 381 So. 2d 58, 59 because she did not o r pay a separate filing t h a t the o p i n i o n the f a t h e r relies upon s u p p o r t s h i s c o n t e n t i o n , 25, 21, as does O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k ( A l a . 1980) ("The basic No. differences b e t w e e n c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s and p r o c e e d i n g s t o m o d i f y a f i n a l decree p r e c l u d e the i n c l u s i o n of a p e t i t i o n f o r r u l e n i s i a petition to modify both opinions P., which i n the same p l e a d i n g . " ) , p r e d a t e t h e a d o p t i o n o f R u l e 70A, now governs contempt proceedings civil actions. See Ex p a r t e B o y k i n , 656 (Ala. C i v . App. 1994) So. we and note that A l a . R. C i v . arising 2d 821, out 827 ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , as o f J u l y 11, of n.5 1994, c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s a r i s i n g f r o m c i v i l a c t i o n s a r e no l o n g e r governed by Rule governed by R u l e 33.3, A l a . R. 70A). 8 Crim. P., and instead are 2120102 Rule 70A e x p r e s s l y provides that contempt proceedings a r i s i n g out o f c i v i l a c t i o n s a r e i n s t i t u t e d by t h e f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n and t h a t such a contempt p r o c e e d i n g the Alabama Rules P., provides of C i v i l Procedure. i s governed by R u l e 18, A l a . R. C i v . t h a t a p a r t y may a s s e r t as many c l a i m s as he o r she has a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e same a c t i o n . on the a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule Thus, b a s e d 70A a n d R u l e 18, we c a n n o t agree w i t h t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o j o i n h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m a n d h e r c o n t e m p t c l a i m i n t h e same a c t i o n . However, we amended p e t i t i o n , agree with the father that the mother's w h i c h added h e r c o n t e m p t c l a i m , was n o t a p r o p e r amendment u n d e r R u l e 1 5 ( a ) . That r u l e reads, i n part: " U n l e s s a c o u r t h a s oo r d e r e d o thheerrww i s e , a p a r t y may rdered ise, amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t to d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n f o r t y - t w o (42) d a y s b e f o r e the f i r s t s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , a n d s u c h amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . T h e r e a f t e r , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y b y l e a v e o f c o u r t , a n d l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y upon a showing o f good cause." The mother's amended p e t i t i o n was filed less than 42 days b e f o r e t h e t r i a l s e t t i n g ; t h u s , she was r e q u i r e d t o s e e k l e a v e o f c o u r t t o amend h e r p e t i t i o n . 9 2120102 A p a r t y who f a i l s t o s e e k l e a v e t o amend a p l e a d i n g u n d e r Rule 1 5 ( a ) may s u f f e r s e v e r e has adopted the United consequences. States Court of Our supreme c o u r t Appeals f o r the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t ' s v i e w on " t h e l e g a l e f f e c t o f an a t t e m p t t o amend a c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g l e a v e o f c o u r t " u n d e r R u l e 15(a). 5 Image M a r k e t i n g , I n c . v. F l o r e n c e T e l e v i s i o n , L.L.C., 884 So. 2d 822, 825-26 ( A l a . 2003) . A c c o r d i n g t o o u r supreme court, " ' [ i ] n g e n e r a l , i f an amendment t h a t c a n n o t be made as o f r i g h t i s s e r v e d without o b t a i n i n g the court's leave or the opposing p a r t y ' s consent, i t i s without l e g a l e f f e c t and any new m a t t e r i t c o n t a i n s w i l l n o t be considered unless the amendment is resubmitted f o r the court's approval.'" Image M a r k e t i n g , Cross 884 So. 2d a t 826 ( q u o t i n g H o o v e r v. Blue & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 855 F.2d 1538, 1544 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1988)). A s o u r supreme c o u r t has n o t e d , b e c a u s e " ' 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 a r e m o d e l e d on t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s a r e h i g h l y p e r s u a s i v e when [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s ] c a l l e d upon t o c o n s t r u e t h e A l a b a m a Rules.'" Image M a r k e t i n g , I n c . v. F l o r e n c e Television, L.L.C., 884 So. 2d 822, 825 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d , 396 So. 2d 692, 696 ( A l a . 1981)). 5 10 2120102 However, o u r supreme c o u r t had indicated without that judicial noted that "'an u n t i m e l y permission may t h e Hoover court pleading served amended be considered as properly i n t r o d u c e d when l e a v e t o amend w o u l d have b e e n g r a n t e d h a d i t been s o u g h t . ' " Image M a r k e t i n g , H o o v e r , 855 F.2d a t 1544) . the trial court 884 So. 2d a t 826 B e c a u s e we c o n s i d e r i t l i k e l y i n the present bolstered father's by the t r i a l conclusion court's failure despite postjudgment motion that c a s e w o u l d have g r a n t e d t h e m o t h e r l e a v e t o amend h a d l e a v e b e e n s o u g h t , w h i c h is (quoting to grant h i s argument the that the amended p e t i t i o n v i o l a t e d R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o s e e k l e a v e t o amend h e r p e t i t i o n her pleading mother's a nullity failure to under seek the facts leave to of t h i s amend renders case. her The petition, t h e r e f o r e , does n o t b e n e f i t t h e f a t h e r . The was not f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s amended p e t i t i o n properly served successful f o r the f a t h e r . upon him, however, does prove As t h e f a t h e r p o i n t e d o u t i n h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d e x p l a i n s on a p p e a l , R u l e 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., d e s p i t e parties stating i n default that s e r v i c e n e e d n o t be made on for failure 11 t o appear, requires that 2120102 "pleadings against asserting new or additional [parties in default for failure s e r v e d upon them i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 4, 244, 246, portion who [ A l a . R. 301 of So. the 2d 557, 559 amends h i s c o m p l a i n t and R. 1982) Civ. P.] appear, States (1974) ("As a s s e r t s new and we reflect a n o t i c e of a l l claims judgment a g a i n s t that a to a p l a i n t i f f Glass F.2d R. for failure to should Formal p e r s o n a l him. been i n v o k e d t o Whether the a c t i o n has commenced o r t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y has or a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a g a i n s t that the the federal 12 in n o t i c e be effect that added a an new a party in default for need f o r n o t i c e courts, enter s e r v i c e i m p r e s s e s upon remedy a g a i n s t note receive f o r r e l i e f upon w h i c h a c o u r t may him. appear, (11th [Fed. a coercive to 1368 and R u l e 5(a) defendant a d e f e n d a n t t h a t j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s has failure claims B o t t l e Blowers 1365, to p a r t i e s i n d e f a u l t policy the see a l s o R u l e 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , C i v . P.] i t applies be Ala. understand or a d d i t i o n a l Canada, 674 [Fed. R. ("Rule 4, as E l l i o t t v. B u r c h , 293 and V a r n e s v. L o c a l 91, Ass'n of U n i t e d relief f o r s e r v i c e o f summons f a i l s to appear . . . . " ) ; C i v . P., Cir. See for to appear] s h a l l R u l e q u o t e d above, i t a p p l i e s a g a i n s t one who Fed. Civ. P.]." claims i s the construing same."). the We analogous 2120102 f e d e r a l r u l e , have c o n c l u d e d t h a t a p a r t y failure t o appear" when action; no formal adjudication Varnes, 674 F.2d a t 1368 n.3. necessary. because "in party does for failure t h e mother's by a court is was a p a r t y and, p u r s u a n t petition i n an Thus, t h e f a t h e r , petition, t o appear," amended not appear of d e f a u l t he d i d n o t a n s w e r t h e m o t h e r ' s default 5(a), that i s " i n default for h a d t o be t o Rule personally s e r v e d on t h e f a t h e r i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 4. "Strict required," App. 1990), A[la]. renders R. compliance Aaron and regarding v. A a r o n , "failure C i v . P., service of 571 So. 2d 1150, 1151 of proper deprives a [a] j u d g m e n t b y d e f a u l t service court void." of process is (Ala. Civ. under Rule jurisdiction Bunbury 553 So. 2d 612 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . "One o f t h e r e q u i s i t e s o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a defendant i s 'perfected s e r v i c e of process g i v i n g notice t o the defendant of the s u i t being brought. ' EX parte Volkswagenwerk A k t i e n g e s e l l s c h a f t , 443 So. 2d 880, 884 ( A l a . 1983) . .... A j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e absence o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t defendant 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 ) . " 13 and S h a d d i x v. S h a d d i x , 603 So. 2d 1096, 1099 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e a l s o v. B u n b u r y , 4, 2120102 Horizons The 2000, I n c . v. S m i t h , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 ( A l a . 1993) . record petition less clearly indicates that service of the amended i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 4 was n e v e r a t t e m p t e d , much effected. adjudicated the The default mother's judgment, claims that the insofar father as i t was in c o n t e m p t o f t h e J u l y 2004 j u d g m e n t , t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o the claimed and that without court arrearages she as o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and m e d i c a l entitled t o an attorney j u r i s d i c t i o n over the f a t h e r . erred in failing to set aside judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o t h o s e c l a i m s amended p e t i t i o n , f e e was Accordingly, that asserted expenses, entered the t r i a l portion i n the mother's and i t s d e n i a l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 55(c) m o t i o n as t o t h e c l a i m s i s therefore reversed. The above c o n c l u s i o n does n o t r e s o l v e t h e e n t i r e however. of i t s The f a t h e r u n q u e s t i o n a b l y appeal, had n o t i c e o f t h e mother's p e t i t i o n seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . The f a t h e r d i d n o t answer t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n o r a p p e a r a t t h e t r i a l on t h e m a t t e r , a n d t h e t r i a l court entered a default judgment t h a t computed a new c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e father. The f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t c h a l l e n g e o f t h e judgment m o d i f y i n g to that portion h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was, as 14 2120102 we have n o t e d e a r l i e r , trial court allowed a Rule 55(c) motion, which motion the t o be d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . G e n e r a l l y , t h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s the d e n i a l of a Rule 55(c) motion to determine whether the d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the motion. 2d 700, trial 703 ( A l a . C i v . App. trial court abused M a r t i n v. C r u m p t o n, 883 2003). We consider whether I n c . , 524 So. 2d 600 the present considered ( A l a . 1988) . case, the when the 6 Service, I n s i t u a t i o n s l i k e t h e one trial court could not have the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s because the Rule 55(c) motion O u r supreme c o u r t has Kirtland: 6 by So. c o u r t has d e m o n s t r a t e d i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r s s e t 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 in its explained the process envisioned "The trial c o u r t must ... a p p l y a t h r e e - f a c t o r analysis f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n Ex p a r t e Illinois C e n t r a l G u l f R.R., 514 So. 2d 1283 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o deny 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 judgment. K i r t l a n d , 524 So. 2d a t 605. The broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y given to the t r i a l court i n making that decision should not be e x e r c i s e d without c o n s i d e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g 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 c u l p a b l e c o n d u c t . ' 524 So. 2d a t 605." Z e l l e r v. B a i l e y , 950 So. 2d 1149, 15 1152-53 ( A l a . 2006). 2120102 was denied by this c o u r t had, i n the r e v e r s e d the d e n i a l of the R u l e 55(c) m o t i o n and remanded t h e cause f o r the See 345, Richardson 349 trial court v. Integrity ( A l a . C i v . App. recently (Ala. o p e r a t i o n of law, explained C i v . App. to consider the Kirtland factors. B i b l e Church, Inc., 897 2004) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s ) . in Brantley v. past, Glover, 84 So. 2d As we more So. 3d 77, 81 2011), "[h]owever, i n order to trigger the mandatory requirement that the trial court consider the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s , the p a r t y f i l i n g a motion to s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t must a l l e g e and provide a r g u m e n t s and e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g a l l t h r e e o f t h e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . See C a r r o l l v. W i l l i a m s , 6 So. 3d 463, 468 ( A l a . 2008) ('Because C a r r o l l has f a i l e d t o satisfy his i n i t i a l burden under the Kirtland analysis [ o f p r o v i d i n g a l l e g a t i o n s and evidence r e l a t i n g t o a l l t h r e e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s ] , we w i l l n o t h o l d the t r i a l c o u r t i n e r r o r f o r a l l o w i n g C a r r o l l ' s 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 t o be d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f law w i t h o u t h a v i n g a p p l i e d the K i r t l a n d a n a l y s i s . ' ) . See a l s o Maiden v. F e d e r a l N a t ' l M o r t g . A s s ' n , 69 So. 3d 860, 867 n.3 (Ala. C i v . App. 2011) ( n o t i n g t h a t we w i l l not r e v e r s e t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w o f a m o t i o n to s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t when t h e movant f a i l s t o argue the e x i s t e n c e of the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s i n h i s or her motion)." (Footnote This movant omitted.) case m i r r o r s in Brantley, motions, arguably the the set situation father, forth a 16 in Brantley. in his motion meritorious and defense Like the amended to the 2120102 c h i l d - s u p p o r t - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n by a s s e r t i n g and p r o v i d i n g evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the f a t h e r had lost h i s employment w i t h A l a b a m a Power Company and t h a t he was now m a k i n g month. See B r a n t l e y , present case, l i k e his c o n d u c t was received 84 So. 3d a t 81-82. The t h e movant i n B r a n t l e y , $700 p e r f a t h e r i n the a l s o argued that n o t c u l p a b l e when he a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d n o t a copy o f t h e s c h e d u l i n g know a b o u t t h e t r i a l s e t t i n g f o r that reason. like asserted, a l l e g e d , o r a r g u e d i n h i s m o t i o n o r amended m o t i o n s that mother default movant would not in Brantley, See i d . a t 82. However, the the o r d e r and t h a t he d i d n o t be the father u n f a i r l y prejudiced j u d g m e n t were s e t a s i d e . See id. never i f the Accordingly, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n and amended m o t i o n s triggered the trial court's duty f a c t o r s before denying the f a t h e r ' s id. to analyze the Kirtland Rule 55(c) motion. See We t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e d e n i a l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 5 5 ( c ) motion i n s o f a r as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e p o r t i o n of the judgment modifying h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 17

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.