PC & All, Inc., d/b/a Mac & More v. Gustavius Maxie and Lakesha McNeil

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/7/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , 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 be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090776 PC & A l l , Inc., d/b/a Mac & More v. Gustavius Maxie and Lakesha McNeil Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-201) BRYAN, J u d g e . PC & All, below, appeals I n c . , d/b/a Mac & More ("PC"), t h e p l a i n t i f f from a judgment i n f a v o r o f G u s t a v i u s Maxie and L a k e s h a M c N e i l , t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e l o w . We r e v e r s e a n d remand. On September 25, 2009, PC s u e d M a x i e a n d M c N e i l , alleging 2090776 t h a t M a x i e a n d M c N e i l h a d b r e a c h e d a c o n t r a c t t o p u r c h a s e two computers those from PC a n d t h a t computers. motion Together f o r a temporary Maxie with and McNeil had i t s complaint, restraining order converted PC filed a ("TRO") a n d f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n c o m p e l l i n g Maxie and McNeil t o p r e s e r v e the c o m p u t e r s p e n d i n g t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f PC's a c t i o n . On O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2009, t h e t r i a l court scheduled a hearing r e g a r d i n g PC's m o t i o n f o r a TRO f o r November 1 7 , 2009. M a x i e and McNeil were s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s November 12, 2009, M a x i e a n d M c N e i l ' s on O c t o b e r 26, 2009. On attorney f i l e d a notice of appearance and a p l e a d i n g n o t i f y i n g the t r i a l Maxie and M c N e i l ' s a t t o r n e y was s c h e d u l e d in on another court t h e date court that t o be t r y i n g a c a s e scheduled f o r the hearing r e g a r d i n g PC's m o t i o n f o r a TRO a n d m o v i n g t h e t r i a l court t o continue and that hearing. On November 1 7 , 2009, PC i t s a t t o r n e y a p p e a r e d i n open c o u r t f o r t h e h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g PC's motion f o r a TRO. When M a x i e , f a i l e d t o appear, t h e t r i a l a g a i n s t Maxie and M c N e i l McNeil, court entered and g r a n t e d and t h e i r attorney a d e f a u l t judgment PC l e a v e t o prove i t s r i g h t t o r e l i e f w i t h i n 15 d a y s . On November 25, 2009, M a x i e a n d M c N e i l 2 filed an a n s w e r 2090776 and c o u n t e r c l a i m . of s e r v i c e , pleading. trial T h a t p l e a d i n g does n o t i n c l u d e a c e r t i f i c a t e a n d PC c o n t e n d s t h a t i t was n o t s e r v e d On November 3 0 , 2009, M a x i e court to set aside the d e f a u l t and M c N e i l judgment with moved t h e and f i l e d demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l . On December 1, 2009, t h e t r i a l made a n o t a t i o n on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n set aside, case set f o r hearing c l e r k of the t r i a l parties' court mailed attorneys. entered an order stating that attorneys, the and summary s t a t i n g 12-15-09 @ parties that t h e case had ordering a court "[d]efault 9:00," a n d t h e copies of that notation t o the On December 1 5 , 2009, stating that been that, the t r i a l had been present "[u]pon court called, with their hearing the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d t e s t i m o n y w/o r e c o r d , [ j ] u d g m e n t i s e n t e r e d in f a v o r o f [ M a x i e and M c N e i l ] . " On J a n u a r y 1 3 , 2010, PC moved t h e t r i a l that judgment on t h e g r o u n d , c o u r t had not g i v e n 2009, h e a r i n g among others, court to vacate that the trial PC a d e q u a t e n o t i c e t h a t t h e December 1 5 , w o u l d be a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e . PC a l s o moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t r i k e M a x i e a n d M c N e i l ' s a n s w e r on t h e grounds t h a t Maxie and M c N e i l had not served PC with t h e i r a n s w e r and h a d n o t i n c l u d e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e r v i c e i n 3 2090776 their a n s w e r . I n a d d i t i o n , PC moved t h e t r i a l court to enter a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t M a x i e a n d M c N e i l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t Maxie and pleaded McNeil had not properly answered b e c a u s e , PC s a i d , M a x i e a n d M c N e i l or otherwise had not served w i t h t h e i r answer. F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t PC's motions McNeil's and review Inc., t h e judgment, to strike denied Maxie and answer, and t o e n t e r a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Maxie McNeil. The to vacate PC Thereafter, issues de novo. PC t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s r a i s e d b y PC a r e q u e s t i o n s See D a v i s 952 So. 2d 330, 334 the judgment o f t h e t r i a l says, the t r i a l court. of law, which v. Hanson A g g r e g a t e s ( A l a . 2006). F i r s t , we Southeast, PC a r g u e s that c o u r t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e , PC c o u r t d i d n o t g i v e PC a d e q u a t e n o t i c e t h a t t h e December 1 5 , 2009, h e a r i n g w o u l d be a t r i a l p e r t i n e n t p a r t , R u l e 40, A l a . R. C i v . P., on t h e m e r i t s . I n provides: " ( a ) S e t t i n g o f C a s e s . The t r i a l o f a c t i o n s s h a l l be s e t b y e n t r y on a t r i a l d o c k e t o r b y w r i t t e n o r d e r a t l e a s t s i x t y (60) d a y s b e f o r e t h e date set for t r i a l , subject to the f o l l o w i n g e x c e p t i o n s : (1) w h e r e , when t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e r e q u i r e , the court continues the t r i a l t o a date t h a t i s l e s s t h a n s i x t y (60) d a y s f r o m a p r e v i o u s l y s e t t r i a l d a t e t h a t was s e t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s rule; (2) where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d of time i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 5 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.] ( ' D e f a u l t ' ) ; (3) where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 6 5 [ , A l a . R. 4 2090776 C i v . P.] ( ' I n j u n c t i o n s ' ) ; (4) where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e s e r v e s t h e ends o f j u s t i c e i n d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c a s e s ; (5) where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e s e r v e s t h e ends o f j u s t i c e i n a h a b e a s c o r p u s o r o t h e r s i m i l a r p r o c e e d i n g where t h e l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t o f an i n d i v i d u a l i s a t i s s u e ; (6) where an a c t i o n has been a p p e a l e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r de novo review, i n which event t h e time p e r i o d between s e t t i n g and t r i a l d a t e s h a l l be a t l e a s t t h i r t y (30) d a y s ; a n d (7) where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e i s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by l a w o r t h e s e r u l e s o r a g r e e d to by a l l p a r t i e s . " (Emphasis added.) Civ. In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , Rule 6 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t , " [ b ] e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e commencement o f the hearing o f an a p p l i c a t i o n the c o u r t may order the t r i a l be advanced and for a preliminary injunction, o f t h e a c t i o n on t h e m e r i t s t o consolidated with the hearing of the application." In I s l e r v. I s l e r , James P a u l I s l e r 870 So. 2d 730 ( A l a . C i v . App. ("the husband") s u e d H a l e e D e n i s e I s l e r w i f e " ) f o r a d i v o r c e on J a n u a r y 18, 2002. On F e b r u a r y the w i f e (1) a m o t i o n f o r a TRO, filed 2003), three motions: ("the 5, 2002, (2) a m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , a n d (3) a m o t i o n f o r t e m p o r a r y custody of the p a r t i e s ' a f t e r the w i f e had f i l e d child. On F e b r u a r y 7, 2002, two d a y s her motions, the t r i a l c o u r t made a n o t a t i o n on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary, s t a t i n g " ' [ t ] h i s set f o r h e a r i n g on M a r c h 1, 2002 a t 8:30 AM.'" 5 case i s 870 So. 2d a t 2090776 731. Between F e b r u a r y 7, 2002, and answered the husband's c o m p l a i n t against the husband, counterclaim. court, over At the the and the and on 1, 2002, asserted a husband hearing wife's March March o b j e c t i o n , proceeded wife counterclaim answered 1, the the wife's 2002, the trial to conduct t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a c t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e t r i a l e n t e r e d a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , and t h e w i f e a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Although Rule 40(a)(4) of time serves case[]," this trial setting t h e ends o f j u s t i c e court nonetheless c o u r t . We court court. authorizes a t r i a l court to shorten time f o r n o t i c e of the t r i a l the the "where a s h o r t e r p e r i o d i n [a] d o m e s t i c reversed the relations judgment of the explained: "We conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s h o r t e n i n g the time f o r n o t i c e of the t r i a l s e t t i n g ; under the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of t h i s case, the n o t i c e s h o r t e n i n g the time f o r t r i a l d i d not s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f o r m the w i f e t h a t the trial c o u r t had s h o r t e n e d t h e t i m e f o r t r i a l and t h a t i t i n t e n d e d t o c o n d u c t a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s on M a r c h 1, 870 2002." So. 2d a t 735. L i k e the n o t i c e at issue in Isler, which merely stated t h a t " ' [ t ] h i s c a s e i s s e t f o r h e a r i n g on M a r c h 1, 2002 a t AM,'" us, 870 So. 2d a t 731, which merely stated t h e n o t i c e i n t h e a c t i o n now "[d]efault 6 set aside, case 8:30 before set for 2090776 hearing the on 12-15-09 @ 9:00," d i d n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f o r m PC t h a t trial court had shortened the time f o r n o t i c e o f a the merits. trial court Accordingly, a n d remand we r e v e r s e the action PC a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l t h e judgment o f t h e t o the t r i a l further proceedings consistent with t h i s trial court f o r opinion. court erred i n denying i t s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e M a x i e a n d M c N e i l ' s e n t i r e a n s w e r b e c a u s e , PC says, Maxie and M c N e i l failed t o serve by R u l e s 5 ( a ) a n d ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, PC h a s c i t e d no authority supporting McNeil's f a i l u r e the striking that a certificate t h e a n s w e r on PC a n d as r e q u i r e d legal to include failed of t h e i r research the proposition that Maxie and t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e s 5 ( a ) a n d (d) j u s t i f i e s answer. i t i s not the function legal of service "We have u n e q u i v o c a l l y of this Court o r t o make a n d a d d r e s s l e g a l t o do a stated party's arguments f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . S p r a d l i n v . S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 2d 76 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , 248, 251 this ( A l a . 1994). Therefore, we d e c l i n e Inc., 652 So. to consider argument made b y PC. Finally, PC a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l 7 court erred i n denying 2090776 PC's motion says, Maxie t o s t r i k e Maxie and McNeil's and M c N e i l ' s answer because, answer named a nonparty as PC a p l a i n t i f f i n t h e a c t i o n . However, we d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r t h i s argument because the record presented i t to the t r i a l Co. , 612 consider does court. not indicate PC See Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) arguments f o r the f i r s t raised that ("This Court time on cannot appeal; r a t h e r , o u r r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l court."). REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . 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 8 writing.

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.