Curtis Austin v. Comelia Austin

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/10/2013 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 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, 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 On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion o f March 8, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , and the following i s substituted therefor. 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 other 2120102 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 custody of the 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 mother, incurred who petition was not paid the April child ordered time acting pro se, of the f a t h e r ' s 2011, filed a the form child-support 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 26, 2012, t h e m o t h e r moved t o have t h e m a t t e r order In on May response, the t r i a l 11, 2012, t h a t t o be h e l d on June 21, 2012. 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 . court t o answer t h e mother's petition. 2 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 yet the 2012. scheduling scheduling and I n December s u p p o r t as p r e v i o u s l y for a t r i a l . 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 child signed appeal, a seeking obligation. by ordered had 2120102 On May attorney, of 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 the father's addition that obligation child-support the father obligation had not paid a f t e r June 2011 a n d t h a t and his employed an modification alleging i n child-support the f a t h e r had not p a i d h i s h a l f of the noncovered m e d i c a l expenses i n c u r r e d by the children. Like the o r i g i n a l s o u g h t an i n c r e a s e petition, i n the father's h o w e v e r , t h e amended p e t i t i o n support t h e amended petition child-support o b l i g a t i o n ; f u r t h e r sought past-due and i n t e r e s t , p a s t - d u e noncovered medical child expenses t h a t h a d b e e n i n c u r r e d b y t h e c h i l d r e n , a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e . The amended p e t i t i o n contempt, but the d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y allegations mention contained in p e t i t i o n s t a t e d a c l a i m f o r contempt a g a i n s t the amended the f a t h e r . R u l e 8 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ( s t a t i n g t h a t p l e a d i n g s so c o n s t r u e d t h e word See " s h a l l be as t o do s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e " ) ; W a t e r s v . J o l l y , 582 So. 2d 1048, 1056 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ( 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 that i s required i s that the complaint adequately n o t i f y the [defendant] of the p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s " ) . Although the 42 mother's before amended p e t i t i o n the t r i a l was filed less than days s e t t i n g , t h e mother d i d n o t seek l e a v e 3 of 2120102 c o u r t , as she was r e q u i r e d t o do by R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P. ( 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 o f c o u r t t o amend a p l e a d i n g 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 first trial The setting). trial however, the was held father, as who scheduled had never on 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 a default f a t h e r t o be the medical father's awarding jail e x p e n s e s owed by the The the mother's attorney trial a court $1,500 noted that the that trial the entered f a t h e r be placed f u r t h e r order of the trial child increasing and fee. month, awarding that father could the an 1 the In purge $7,900, p l u s court of $1,115 p e r attorney court finding father, $267, 2012; trial 2012, judgment of o f c o n t e m p t by p a y i n g until 29, mother a c o s t s the same d a t e , June o b l i g a t i o n to judgment, the ordering on child-support mother's himself judgment 21, i n contempt, c a l c u l a t i n g the a r r e a r a g e s s u p p o r t and the the interest. order i n the of On the attachment Jefferson County court. The 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 On as a J u l y 15, 2012, result of the t h e f a t h e r , who order of had b e e n attachment, 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., the trial order. 2 release court's In from postjudgment 2012. the June same 29, 2012, motion, incarceration. 3 the filed father m o t i o n on J u l y 16, 2012, a motion seeking vacation judgment The incarcerated 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 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 after 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 ( A l a . 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 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, affidavit the stated owner that of he a barber had been salon; the terminated employment w i t h A l a b a m a Power Company i n June 2011, father's from his and b o t h 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 $700 p e r month. The t r i a l 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 , and i t was 2012. 4 The deemed d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on O c t o b e r father filed a notice o f a p p e a l on October 15, 22, 2012. 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 court'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 Clerk 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 days 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 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, scheduling subject-matter filing a first c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t " g r a n t i n g h i m a new he order. He says, he was never served He n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l with 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. petition petition The improperly father allowed t o be modification then the tried petition cannot included argues amended despite was be that that the evidence i n the the t r i a l modification the f a c t submitted and that amended w i t h o u t w h i c h l e a v e was r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 1 5 ( a ) . argues the same court contempt the mother's leave Further, in 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 c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and, t h u s , in contempt. properly Finally, served with t h a t he c o u l d n o t be h e l d the father the mother's argues that amended he was n o t petition; he 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 i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e 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. R. C i v . P., t o s e r v e t h e amended p e t i t i o n 7 on h i m p u r s u a n t 2120102 to Rule 4, certified We Ala. R. Civ. P., by either personal service or mail. first consider the father's court lacked subject-matter argument t h a t the trial 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. 375 So. The f a t h e r , r e l y i n g on 2d 1066 O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k No. ( A l a . 1979), argues t h a t the mother f a i l e d properly institute file contempt a c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y her fee. her contempt action A l t h o u g h i t appears t h a t the upon s u p p o r t s h i s c o n t e n t i o n , 25, 381 So. 21, 2d 58, 59 (Ala. because o r pay opinion she did not a separate filing the relies father as does O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k 1980) ("The to 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 preclude a petition to modify both opinions P., which 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 now i n the p r e d a t e the governs civil actions. See (Ala. C i v . App. 1994) same p l e a d i n g . " ) , a d o p t i o n o f R u l e 70A, contempt Ex p a r t e proceedings Boykin, 656 So. we note that A l a . R. Civ. 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, contempt p r o c e e d i n g s a r i s i n g from c i v i l 8 and a c t i o n s a r e no of n.5 1994, longer 2120102 governed by R u l e 33.3, A l a . R. Crim. P., and i n s t e a d a r e governed by Rule 70A). Rule arising 70A e x p r e s s l y out of c i v i l a petition contempt provides proceedings 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 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 h a s a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l on that and t h a t such a contempt p r o c e e d i n g the Alabama Rules P., provides the a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e same a c t i o n . Thus, b a s e d o f R u l e 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 thhee r w i s e , a p a r t y may rdered rwise, 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 t o 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 a n y 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." 9 2120102 The mother's amended p e t i t i o n was filed 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 less than 42 days r e q u i r e d t o seek 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 . A p a r t y who Rule 15(a) may has adopted 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 s u f f e r severe the United consequences. States Court of Our supreme c o u r t Appeals for 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) . 884 5 Image M a r k e t i n g , So. 2d 822, I n c . v. F l o r e n c e T e l e v i s i o n , 825-26 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . According t o our L.L.C., 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 c o u r t ' 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 r e s u b m i t t e d f o r the c o u r t ' s a p p r o v a l . ' " As 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 Image M a r k e t i n g , 884 So. 2d at 826 (quoting C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 855 F.2d H o o v e r v. 1538, 1544 Blue (11th C i r . 1988)). However, o u r had indicated without supreme c o u r t that noted that untimely permission judicial "'an may the amended be Hoover court pleading considered as served 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 had 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 i n the trial court is bolstered father's by the postjudgment B e c a u s e we So. 2d a t 826 (quoting consider i t l i k e l y that c a s e w o u l d have g r a n t e d present m o t h e r l e a v e t o amend had 884 the l e a v e been sought, w h i c h trial court's failure motion despite his conclusion to grant 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 leave t h e r e f o r e , does n o t b e n e f i t t h e The was not facts to of amend this her renders case. The petition, father. f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s amended p e t i t i o n properly s u c c e s s f u l f o r the served father. upon As 11 him, the however, does prove f a t h e r p o i n t e d out in his 2120102 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 , Civ. P., d e s p i t e parties i n default "pleadings against stating that service for failure asserting new t o appear, forfailure 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, [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . " 244, requires claims that for relief t o a p p e a r ] s h a l l be f o r s e r v i c e o f summons See E l l i o t t v. B u r c h , 293 A l a . 246, 301 So. 2d 5 5 7 , 559 (1974) portion n e e d n o t be made on or a d d i t i o n a l [parties i n default R u l e 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. ("As we u n d e r s t a n d t h e o f t h e R u l e q u o t e d above, i t a p p l i e s to a p l a i n t i f f who amends h i s c o m p l a i n t a n d a s s e r t s new o r a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t one who f a i l s t o a p p e a r . . . . " ) ; Fed. R. C i v . P., a n d V a r n e s v. L o c a l 91, G l a s s Ass'n of United Cir. see a l s o Rule 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , States B o t t l e Blowers a n d Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1368 1982) ("Rule 4, [Fed. R. C i v . P.,] (11th and Rule 5 ( a ) [ , Fed. R. C i v . P.,] as i t a p p l i e s t o p a r t i e s i n d e f a u l t f o r f a i l u r e to appear, reflect notice of a l l claims judgment a g a i n s t a p o l i c y that a defendant should receive f o r r e l i e f upon w h i c h a c o u r t may him. Formal p e r s o n a l enter s e r v i c e i m p r e s s e s upon 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 been i n v o k e d t o e f f e c t a coercive remedy a g a i n s t h i m . W h e t h e r t h e n o t i c e be t h a t an a c t i o n h a s commenced o r t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y h a s a d d e d a new 12 2120102 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 a p a r t y i n d e f a u l t f o r failure note t o appear, that t h e need the f e d e r a l f o r notice courts, i s t h e same."). i n construing 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 t o appear" when action; no formal adjudication Varnes, 674 F.2d a t 1368 n.3. because "in party does default for failure by a court is was a p a r t y and, p u r s u a n t 5(a), t h e mother's served required," App. 1990), A[la]. renders R. compliance Aaron and regarding v. A a r o n , "failure C i v . P., h a d t o be t o Rule 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 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 analogous i s " i n default for failure necessary. that the We service of 571 So. 2d 1150, 1151 of proper deprives a service court [a] j u d g m e n t b y d e f a u l t v o i d . " of personally process is (Ala. Civ. under jurisdiction and 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 n o t i c e t o the defendant of the s u i t being brought. ' 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 13 4, 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 , Rule 2120102 absence of 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 . 1989) ." H o r i z o n s 2000, I n c . v. S m i t h , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 ( A l a . 1993) . The 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 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 expenses, entitled t o an attorney without j u r i s d i c t i o n over the f a t h e r . court erred in failing amended p e t i t i o n , that asserted The above c o n c l u s i o n i s therefore entered the t r i a l portion of i t s 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 m o t i o n as t o t h o s e c l a i m s however. Accordingly, 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 f e e was Rule 55(c) reversed. does n o t r e s o l v e t h e e n t i r e appeal, The f a t h e r u n q u e s t i o n a b l y h a d n o t i c e o f t h e m o t h e r ' 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 . He c o n t e n d s that motion seeking he d i d n o t r e c e i v e notice of the mother's t o have t h e a c t i o n s e t f o r t r i a l copy o f t h e s c h e d u l i n g order setting 14 the t r i a l . or receive a The father 2120102 did 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 the matter, and t h e t r i a l court entered a d e f a u l t 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 The f a t h e r ' s postjudgment judgment m o d i f y i n g have noted trial challenge f o r the f a t h e r . to that p o r t i o n of the h i s child-support obligation earlier, a Rule 55(c) motion, was, as we which motion the c o u r t a l l o w e d t o be d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . The f a t h e r argues that t h e d e f a u l t judgment should be c o n s i d e r e d v o i d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e m o t h e r t o s e r v e h i m w i t h h e r m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o have t h e a c t i o n s e t f o r trial and t h e f a i l u r e of the t r i a l court clerk t o serve him w i t h t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r d e p r i v e d h i m o f one o f t h e h a l l m a r k s o f due p r o c e s s (Ala. for n o t i c e . Ex p a r t e Weeks, 611 So. 2d 259, 261 1992) ( " I t i s g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t an o p p o r t u n i t y a h e a r i n g b e f o r e a competent and i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l proper notice process."). i s one The of the essential f a t h e r d i d n o t argue elements of upon due i n h i s postjudgment m o t i o n o r i t s amendments t h a t he h a d b e e n d e n i e d due process b e c a u s e he was n o t n o t i f i e d o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n o r o f t h e scheduling order. issue. This f a i l u r e precludes our review of t h i s See T u c k e r v. S t a t e , 445 So. 2d 311, 314 15 (Ala. Civ. 2120102 App. 1984) ( 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 w i l l not consider a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l argument r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on unless the argument i n d i c a t e s an absence of appeal subject-matter jurisdiction). Generally, t h i s court reviews 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. c o u r t has s e t out I n c . , 524 court abused M a r t i n v. C r u m p t o n, 883 2003). We consider whether 2d 600 F o r t Morgan A u t h o r i t y Sewer ( A l a . 1988) . O u r supreme c o u r t has Kirtland: 6 by trial 55(c) its So. the demonstrated i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f a c t o r s i n K i r t l a n d v. So. the d e n i a l of a Rule 6 In s i t u a t i o n s l i k e explained the process Service, the envisioned "The t r i a l c o u r t must ... apply a t h r e e - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s 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 . 1987), 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 j u d g m e n t . 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 g i v e n 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, 16 1152-53 one ( A l a . 2006). 2120102 in the present case, when the trial court could not considered the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s because the R u l e 55(c) was by denied o p e r a t i o n of law, t h i s c o u r t had, r e v e r s e d the d e n i a l of the R u l e 55(c) cause f o r the See 345, Richardson 349 recently (Ala. trial court v. Integrity ( A l a . C i v . App. explained C i v . App. to consider B i b l e Church, v. Glover, past, remanded t h e Kirtland factors. Inc., 2004) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s ) . in Brantley motion i n the m o t i o n and the have 84 So. 897 So. As we 3d "[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 t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t t o be d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w 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 omitted.) 17 more 77, 2011), 2d 81 2120102 This movant case m i r r o r s i n Brantley, motions, arguably the s i t u a t i o n the f a t h e r , set forth i n Brantley. i n h i s motion a Like the amended defense meritorious and to the 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 l o s t 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 $700 p e r month. See B r a n t l e y , present case, l i k e his 84 So. 3d a t 81-82. The f a t h e r i n t h e t h e movant i n B r a n t l e y , a l s o argued c o n d u c t was 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 received a copy of the scheduling 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. 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 the mother default movant would j u d g m e n t were i n Brantley, See i d . a t 82. like that the o r d e r and t h a t he d i d n o t However, n o t be unfairly set aside. the father prejudiced See i d . triggered the t r i a l court's duty never motions i f the Accordingly, 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 to analyze the we motions Kirtland f a c t o r s b e f o r e denying the f a t h e r ' s Rule 55(c) motion. id. that 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 o f t h e j u d g m e n t modifying h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . 18 2120102 APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF M^ARCH 8, 2013, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Moore a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , recuses h i m s e l f . * *Judge P i t t m a n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s c a s e on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n . However, due t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r i s i n g a f t e r t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n was i s s u e d , Judge P i t t m a n has r e c u s e d h i m s e l f from f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s appeal. 19

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.