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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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

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.