B. E. H., Jr. v. State of Alabama ex rel. M.E.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/8/2011 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, 2010-2011 2100151 B.E.H., J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . M.E.C. Appeal from Madison J u v e n i l e Court (CS-10-2513 and DR-10-1424) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On J a n u a r y 27, 2 0 1 0 , t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , on b e h a l f o f M.E.C. ("the m o t h e r " ) , Uniform I n t e r s t a t e Family Ala. Code 1975 filed a complaint Support Act, ("UIFSA"), pursuant to the § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . , i n t h e Madison Juvenile Court 2100151 against B.E.H., subsequently Jr. amended, judgment e n t e r e d and t h e f a t h e r ("the father"). The sought t o r e g i s t e r complaint, as f o r enforcement a i n 1978 by a T e x a s c o u r t d i v o r c i n g t h e m o t h e r ("the T e x a s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t " ) . That judgment h a d r e q u i r e d t h e f a t h e r t o p a y $30 p e r week t o t h e m o t h e r as support f o r the p a r t i e s ' then minor c h i l d , i n June 1972. The c o m p l a i n t court determined in that 1987 but t h e Texas h a d been b o r n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e S t a t e o f Texas h a d s o u g h t t o have t h e T e x a s d i v o r c e Alabama who that court judgment e n f o r c e d the had Alabama not b y an court acquired had personal j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e f a t h e r and, as a r e s u l t , t h a t t h e c h i l d support provisions enforceable. o f t h e Texas The c o m p l a i n t divorce judgment were i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e Alabama not court had e n t e r e d a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r a g a i n s t the f a t h e r r e q u i r i n g him t o p a y $120 p e r month as c h i l d s u p p o r t b e g i n n i n g 1988. The complaint sought a judgment c o n t r o l l i n g o r d e r was t h e s u p p o r t o r d e r court i n 1988, d e t e r m i n i n g support arrearage and that the i s s u e d by t h e Alabama t h e amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s interest f a t h e r t o p a y t h a t amount. declaring in April thereon, and child- ordering the The f a t h e r f i l e d an answer t o t h e complaint. 2 2100151 The j u v e n i l e court 22, 2010. the juvenile court September hearing because granted his counsel t h e m o t i o n and was i l l . continued the The trial September 29, 2010. On September 29, 2010, only counsel Alabama a p p e a r e d f o r t h e s c h e d u l e d the on On September 21, 2010, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o continue until s e t the case f o r t r i a l father, proceeding, nor the counsel father's f o r the State of t r i a l ; n e i t h e r the mother, counsel f o r the State appeared. o f Alabama At the moved f o r 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 a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r i n t h e amount of $5,925.44, was the recoverable arrearage On default r e p r e s e n t i n g what t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a l l e g e d amount of and i n t e r e s t on t h e September judgment 30, 2010, against the father's child-support arrearage. the the j u v e n i l e court father. entered In i t s judgment, j u v e n i l e c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g s f i n d i n g s o f fact: " 1 . The p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d i n T e x a s i n 1978. They h a d one c h i l d ... whose d a t e o f b i r t h i s June 21, 1972. "2. [ T h e m o t h e r ] h a d moved t o Texas some t i m e p r i o r t o the d i v o r c e but [ t h e f a t h e r ] d i d not l i v e i n T e x a s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e and a p p a r e n t l y h a d no minimum c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e s t a t e . The d i v o r c e [judgment], however, ordered him t o pay child support i n t h e amount o f $30 p e r week. There 3 a the 2100151 a p p e a r s t o have b e e n no p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r [ t h e f a t h e r ] by t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s t h u s m a k i n g t h e s u p p o r t o r d e r i n v a l i d as t o him i n A l a b a m a . "3. I n 1978 [ ( s i c ) ] , t h e s t a t e o f T e x a s a s k e d the S t a t e o f Alabama t o e n f o r c e the Texas d i v o r c e . I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t [ t h e f a t h e r ] had n e v e r l i v e d i n T e x a s and t h a t t h e o r d e r f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t was t h e r e f o r e not e n f o r c e a b l e i n Alabama. Instead, a Petition f o r S u p p o r t was f i l e d and an O r d e r o f S u p p o r t s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d on A p r i l 29, 1988, ... w h i c h r e q u i r e d [ t h e f a t h e r ] t o p a y $120 p e r month u n t i l the minor c h i l d emancipated. "4. A t some p o i n t , t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s a s k e d [ t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] t o c l o s e i t s c a s e and s t o p c o l l e c t i n g . I t i s u n c l e a r as t o why t h i s o c c u r r e d when t h e r e was s t i l l a valid A l a b a m a O r d e r , b u t DHR d i d s t o p c o l l e c t i o n . "5. I n J a n u a r y 2010, t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s a s k e d Alabama t o f i l e the i n s t a n t case t o determine the controlling o r d e r and t o c o l l e c t any a r r e a r s owed under t h a t o r d e r . The S t a t e o f T e x a s c o n t e n d s some $44,000+ i s s t i l l owed u n d e r t h e 1978 d i v o r c e . The S t a t e of Alabama contends t h a t a t o t a l of $5,925.44 i s s t i l l c o l l e c t a b l e under the Alabama o r d e r . "6. The age o f e m a n c i p a t i o n i n T e x a s i s 18 y e a r s o f age o r u n t i l t h e m i n o r c h i l d f i n i s h e s h i g h school. The c h i l d f i n i s h e d h i g h s c h o o l i n June 1990, t h e same month he t u r n e d 18. The age of e m a n c i p a t i o n i n A l a b a m a i s 19. "7. The s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r c o l l e c t i o n o f a Judgment i n T e x a s i s 10 y e a r s . The t i m e i n A l a b a m a i s 20 y e a r s . Under UIFSA, t h e l o n g e r o f t h e s t a t u t e s i s a p p l i c a b l e ; t h u s , 20 y e a r s w o u l d be t h e a p p l i c a b l e t i m e p e r i o d f o r w h i c h s u p p o r t can be sought. As t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d i n J a n u a r y 2010, t h e t i m e frame u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e w o u l d be s u p p o r t t h a t has a c c r u e d s i n c e J a n u a r y 1990. This 4 2100151 i s b a s e d on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t e a c h payment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t becomes a f i n a l j u d g m e n t when i t has not been p a i d . " B a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d the child-support order i s s u e d by the Alabama c o u r t was t h e c o n t r o l l i n g o r d e r ; t h a t , s i n c e J a n u a r y 1990, in that 1988 $1,664 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t had a c c r u e d as u n p a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t , t a k i n g i n t o account a l l the c r e d i t s to which the that i n t e r e s t of juvenile court a r r e a r a g e and parties' notice trial had On ordered of been the sent m o t i o n t h a t we 1 father The 12, hearing, to been c o n t i n u e d October judgment. the a c c r u e d on to i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e o f $120 notice had $4,261.44 had f a t h e r was counsel the for pay entitled; and that amount. The the child-support p e r month. judgment both c o n s t r u e as the father filed denied that that the that the 2010. a a motion to set aside juvenile court stated parties u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 29, 2010, As t o postjudgment the motion, default and the A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r t i t l e d h i s m o t i o n as one seeking " r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n " o f t h e j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e m o t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r was s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that ' [ t ] h i s Court w i l l l o o k a t the substance of a motion r a t h e r than i t s t i t l e , t o d e t e r m i n e how t h a t m o t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r t h e Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . ' " B r a s f i e l d & Gorrie, L.L.C. v. Soho P a r t n e r s , L.L.C., 35 So. 3d 601, 604 (Ala. 1 5 2100151 f a t h e r f i l e d an a p p e a l t o the Madison C i r c u i t Court. after appeal, he filed audiotape been that recording made. Thus, i t was discovered Shortly that o f t h e September 29, 2010, h e a r i n g the father the c i r c u i t moved an had court to t r a n s f e r t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t b a s e d on R u l e 2 8 ( A ) , A l a . R. Juv. P., w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r appeals directly to this court f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t when, among o t h e r t h i n g s , " [ a ] r e c o r d certified as stipulation trial adequate by granted. juvenile court judge o f f a c t s i s a v a i l a b l e and t h e r i g h t has been e x e r c i s e d thereto." the a to a jury or waived by a l l p a r t i e s R u l e 2 8 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. or entitled T h a t m o t i o n was Subsequently, the j u v e n i l e court c e r t i f i e d that the r e c o r d was a d e q u a t e . On a p p e a l , the f a t h e r contends t h a t the j u v e n i l e court s h o u l d have g r a n t e d h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d s e t a s i d e t h e default judgment. appeals stemming f r o m a t r i a l motion t o s e t aside "The applicable court's standard of review in granting or denying a a d e f a u l t judgment i s whether t h e t r i a l 2009) ( q u o t i n g P o n t i u s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 915 So. 2d 557, 562-63 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . 6 2100151 court's decision constituted K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . 600, 603 ( A l a . 1988). have r e i t e r a t e d that an of discretion." Sewer S e r v . , I n c . , 524 "[T]his the abuse court trial and court So. t h e Supreme 'should 2d Court exercise i t s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y p o w e r s w i t h l i b e r a l i t y and s h o u l d b a l a n c e the e q u i t i e s of the case w i t h the defendant Hutchinson, to 647 have So. 2d a strong bias h i s day 786, in 788 court. ' toward Hutchinson ( A l a . C i v . App. DeQuesada v. DeQuesada, 698 So. 2d 1096, 1098 allowing 1994)." ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). "Our supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y 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 where t h e r e i s d o u b t as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e d e f a u l t judgment. J o h n s o n v. Moore, 514 So. 2d 1343 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . Our supreme c o u r t has a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d g u i d e l i n e s t o a s s i s t a t r i a l judge i n e x e r c i s i n g h i s d i s c r e t i o n . "'[A] t r i a l court's broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y u n d e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] should not be exercised without c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e f a c t o r s : 1) w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e d e f a u l t judgment 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 . ' " K i r t l a n d [v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . Sewer S e r v . , I n c . ] , 524 So. 2d [600] a t 605 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ] . " 7 v. 2100151 M a r t i n v. C r u m p t o n , 883 So. 2d 700, 703 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he p r e s e n t e d to the State a m e r i t o r i o u s defense o f Alabama's a c t i o n i n h i s motion t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment. "To p r e s e n t a m e r i t o r i o u s defense, f o r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) p u r p o s e s , does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e movant the t r i a l a trial satisfy c o u r t t h a t t h e movant w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y p r e v a i l on t h e m e r i t s , only that t h e movant show t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e movant i s p r e p a r e d to present Sampson So. v. Cansler, 726 at 2d a p l a u s i b l e defense." 632, 634 ( A l a . 1998) . Furthermore, " [ t ] h e defense p r o f f e r e d by t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y must be o f s u c h m e r i t as t o i n d u c e to infer that allowing the t r i a l the defense t o be f o r e s e e a b l y a l t e r t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e . " court reasonably litigated Kirtland, could 524 So. 2d a t 606. The father asserts that he has numerous meritorious defenses t o t h e S t a t e o f Alabama's a c t i o n a g a i n s t him. o t h e r t h i n g s , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s h a d his f e d e r a l income-tax returns but that those amounts amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o be u s e d f o r c h i l d had n o t been the State 8 Among garnished support credited against o f A l a b a m a was s e e k i n g the to 2100151 collect had from him. 2 He a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e e x p r e s s l y waived i t s r i g h t t o seek f u r t h e r payments from him and had r e f u s e d p a y m e n t s f r o m him. t o accept o f Alabama child-support child-support The f a t h e r r a i s e d b o t h o f t h o s e a r g u m e n t s i n h i s motion t o s e t aside t h e d e f a u l t judgment. As t o t h e l a t t e r a r g u m e n t , we n o t e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i t s e l f found, i n i t s judgment, t h a t t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, a t t h e request o f the State o f Texas, had stopped collecting child support payments from t h e f a t h e r . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n h i s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t t h a t he was prepared to present p l a u s i b l e defenses t o the State of The S t a t e o f Alabama c o u n t e r s t h a t , " [ d ] u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d a s p r e a d s h e e t ... g i v i n g c r e d i t f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t ... f o r money c o l l e c t e d b y t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s i n F e b r u a r y 2010." The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a ' s a t t o r n e y s t a t e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t t h e s p r e a d s h e e t r e f l e c t e d a c r e d i t f o r "a t a x i n t e r c e p t i n F e b r u a r y o f 2010 t h a t was made b y t h e S t a t e o f Texas." However, t h e s p r e a d s h e e t was n o t made p a r t o f t h e record, and statements of attorneys do n o t c o n s t i t u t e evidence. 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 , f a c t u a l a s s e r t i o n s , and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . " ) . M o r e o v e r , as s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e f a t h e r has s e t f o r t h a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e , we a r e n o t d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y p r e v a i l a t a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s , o n l y w h e t h e r he i s p r e p a r e d t o p r e s e n t a p l a u s i b l e d e f e n s e . See Sampson, 726 So. 2d a t 634. 2 9 2100151 A l a b a m a ' s a c t i o n and juvenile court that t h e d e f e n s e s he were o f s u c h m e r i t that, proffered i f litigated, c o u l d have a l t e r e d t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e . The not as set forth conclusions "relevant basis." defenses they father d i d legal w i t h o u t f a c t u a l s u p p o r t , " b u t , i n s t e a d , he cited grounds Kirtland, 524 K i r t l a n d f a c t o r weighs i n h i s motion the "bare legal those to s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a credible factual So. As 2d at 606. a result, i n favor of s e t t i n g aside this the d e f a u l t judgment. The unfairly father also asserts prejudiced "'[T]he p r e j u d i c e i f the warranting that the p l a i n t i f f default denial judgment 276 ( A l a . 2002) (quoting K i r t l a n d , 524 not aside. 55(c) motion 828 So. 2d So. 2d a t 6 0 7 ) . "[W]hen a p a r t y f i l e s a motion to set aside a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , t h e movant has t h e i n i t i a l b u r d e n of making a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t the p l a i n t i f f will n o t 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 judgment i s s e t a s i d e . I f t h e movant makes a p r i m a facie showing that the p l a i n t i f f will not be u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d , the burden then s h i f t s to the plaintiff to present facts showing that the 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 judgment i s s e t a s i d e . " P h i l l i p s v. R a n d o l p h , 828 So. 2d a t 10 278. be i s set of a Rule must be s u b s t a n t i a l . ' " P h i l l i p s v. R a n d o l p h , will 269, 2100151 In that the present case, the record any party s e t t i n g aside apparently be one child has attempted support no i n d i c a t i o n substantially prejudiced of the d e f a u l t judgment, no outstanding would contains from to the the f a t h e r ' s the e s p e c i a l l y given collect father the for a r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y a l m o s t 20 y e a r s ago. was by o b l i g a t i o n , i n seeking that allegedly child who However, i t t o have t h e default j u d g m e n t s e t a s i d e , t o make a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e s h o w i n g t h a t prejudice that would b e f a l l motion were the State granted. no o f Alabama o r the mother i f The father failed to do so. Indeed, the f a t h e r never addressed t h a t i s s u e i n h i s motion t o set aside weighs the the i n favor default Finally, not default the judgment. As a result, of denying the f a t h e r ' s motion this factor to set aside judgment. the f a t h e r argues t h a t the d e f a u l t judgment result of any culpable conduct on his was part. D i s c u s s i n g t h i s f i n a l K i r t l a n d f a c t o r , t h i s c o u r t has w r i t t e n : "Last, the t r i a l court should consider the culpability of the d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y ' s conduct. [ K i r t l a n d , 524 So. 2d a t 6 0 7 ] . 'Conduct c o m m i t t e d willfully or i n bad faith constitutes culpable conduct f o r purposes of determining whether a default judgment should be set aside.' Id. 'Negligence by itself is insufficient.' Id. Willful and bad-faith conduct is conduct 11 2100151 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n c e s s a n t and f l a g r a n t d i s r e s p e c t for c o u r t r u l e s , d e l i b e r a t e and knowing d i s r e g a r d for judicial authority, or intentional nonresponsiveness. I d . a t 608. 'The s t r o n g p o l i c y o f r e s o l v i n g l e g a l i s s u e s on t h e m e r i t s must y i e l d when a d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y h a s c o m m i t t e d i n t e n t i o n a l acts that are contrary to procedural rules. ' Id. 'However, a defaulting party's reasonable explanation f o r i n a c t i o n and n o n c o m p l i a n c e may preclude a f i n d i n g of c u l p a b i l i t y . ' I d . " Weaver v. Weaver, 747 So. 2d 909, 912 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t n e i t h e r he n o r h i s c o u n s e l n o t i f i e d by t h e c o u r t his motion t o continue a date approximately in and t h a t , when t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the t r i a l , the t r i a l a week l a t e r . i t s d e f a u l t judgment t h a t c o u n s e l counsel 2010, had been s e t f o r The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e d f o r t h e S t a t e o f Alabama date, but the f a t h e r argues t h a t nothing record i n d i c a t e s that the j u v e n i l e court informed p a r t i e s or t h e i r answer Weaver, counsel a complaint set aside o f t h e new t r i a l i n the any o f t h e date. one o f t h e p a r t i e s - - t h e h u s b a n d - - f a i l e d and t h e t r i a l judgment a g a i n s t him. to granted f o r t h e f a t h e r were n o t i f i e d o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 29, trial In were that court A f t e r the t r i a l judgment, entered a to default court denied a motion the husband appealed, and t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e d e f a u l t judgment. 12 I n a n a l y z i n g whether the 2100151 h u s b a n d had a c t e d c u l p a b l y i n f a i l i n g t o answer t h e this court complaint, wrote: "In the i n s t a n t case, the record is not determinative of the i s s u e whether the husband committed c u l p a b l e conduct i n f a i l i n g t o answer. However, we f i n d i n t h e r e c o r d no e v i d e n c e of intentional disregard for court orders and no evidence of a d i s r e s p e c t f o r j u d i c i a l authority. The h u s b a n d p r o m p t l y f i l e d h i 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, c o n t a i n i n g a statement of a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e and s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e ; and he c o m p l i e d w i t h f u r t h e r d i s c o v e r y o r d e r s o f t h e c o u r t p e n d i n g t h e h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . The h u s b a n d ' s a c t i o n s a p p e a r to f a l l i n t o the category of n e g l i g e n c e , r a t h e r than culpable conduct." Weaver, 747 So. 2d a t In the present 912. case, excuse f o r h i s f a i l u r e t h e f a t h e r has provided a plausible t o have a p p e a r e d f o r t h e t r i a l , t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had not informed him i.e., o f t h e new trial s e t t i n g d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t h a d g i v e n him n o t i c e when t h e c a s e was not set for t r i a l c o n t a i n any orders" or on p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s . The r e c o r d does evidence of " i n t e n t i o n a l d i s r e g a r d f o r "disrespect for judicial authority." Id. f a t h e r , upon l e a r n i n g o f t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , p r o m p t l y a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u d g m e n t , and, that motion contained a t l e a s t two 13 court The filed as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , m e r i t o r i o u s defenses. At 2100151 m o s t , t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r f o r t r i a l was it d i d not We r i s e to the recognize, the j u v e n i l e court 239 t h a t the and does n o t ( A l a . C i v . App. not constitute a factor that change the our Burleson 2009). trial conclusion that do t h a t would s u p p o r t the default does judgment. not weigh As the 19 been the not the accept case file continued, father's rise So. result, setting the to a l e v e l last aside i t actions d e n i a l of a motion to a against notify to and v. B u r l e s o n , d a t e had every case However, e v e n i f we a t most and negligence culpability aside See have a d u t y f a t h e r f a i l e d i n h i s duty of checking discovering would conduct. f o r k e e p i n g t r a c k of h i s or her p a r t i e s of a case s e t t i n g . 3 d 233, of c u l p a b l e as t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a r g u e s , t h a t party i s responsible that level negligent; of set Kirtland the default judgment. Based presented action and on the meritorious that the r e s u l t of c u l p a b l e this, and foregoing, under we defenses entry of the c o n d u c t on t h e the conclude to the that State default of of this case, father Alabama's j u d g m e n t was father's part. circumstances the not In l i g h t we of cannot conclude t h a t the f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e to demonstrate p r e j u d i c e 14 a to 2100151 the mother or the State sufficient exercised basis on o f Alabama, which i t s discretion 290 that one o r b o t h supports was could a have ("'[A] f a i l u r e of the second and t h i r d 991 So. 2d t o demonstrate Kirtland factors t h e g r a n t i n g o f r e l i e f from a d e f a u l t judgment i s n o t fatal S u m l i n v. S u m l i n , a result, reversal court See F u l l e r v. F u l l e r , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) necessarily As the j u v e n i l e alone, t o deny t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. 285, standing we t o a motion f o r such relief.'" 931 So. 2d 40, 48 ( A l a . C i v . App. conclude in failing that the j u v e n i l e court to set aside (quoting 2005))). erred to t h e d e f a u l t judgment. We r e v e r s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 15

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.