D.B. v. D.G.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL 09/06/13 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120217 D.B. v. D.G. Appeal from Morgan J u v e n i l e Court (CS-12-108) DONALDSON, J u d g e . D.B. ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from a default judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e Morgan J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) i n f a v o r o f D.G. ("the f a t h e r " ) , a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f S.G. child"), t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d , ("the t o the f a t h e r and o r d e r i n g 2120217 the mother t o pay c h i l d court's determination support. We affirm the j u v e n i l e that i tattained j u r i s d i c t i o n over the m o t h e r ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e we f i n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was entitled t o a h e a r i n g on h e r 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 , we r e v e r s e t h e d e n i a l b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w o f h e r 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 a n d remand t h e c a s e . The c h i l d was b o r n on September 26, 2009. t h e f a t h e r were n e v e r m a r r i e d , same r e s i d e n c e i n Morgan but they l i v e d together County u n t i l A p r i l f a t h e r t e m p o r a r i l y moved o u t o f t h e h o u s e . the father filed juvenile court. a complaint The m o t h e r a n d i n the 2012, when t h e On A p r i l 16, 2012, to e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y i n the The f a t h e r a l s o s o u g h t c u s t o d y of the c h i l d , s u b j e c t t o t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o v i s i t a t i o n , as w e l l as c h i l d support from t h e mother. i s s u e d a summons 27, 2012. The r e c o r d f o r t h e mother w i t h reveals that the c l e r k the complaint on A p r i l The r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t b y p r i v a t e process s e r v e r on May 1, 2012, i n Morgan C o u n t y . The s t r e e t a d d r e s s f o r t h e mother, p r o v i d e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t by t h e f a t h e r , was t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e h o u s e where t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e father had r e s i d e d together until 2 April 2012. The record 2120217 reveals June that or the July m o t h e r moved o u t 2012, but that the of the house sometime j u v e n i l e court was in never p r o v i d e d a d i f f e r e n t address f o r her u n t i l a f t e r the e n t r y of the d e f a u l t judgment. On for April June 6, 27, 2012, r e c o r d does n o t was sent court's out child. to the j u v e n i l e court address the issue set a t r i a l date paternity. The of c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t n o t i c e of the with order t e s t i n g and 2012, the summons and required the complaint. parties to submit d i r e c t e d t h e m o t h e r t o a p p e a r on On June 6, 2012, juvenile to genetic June 6 w i t h the the f a t h e r appeared f o r the p a t e r n i t y t r i a l and s u b m i t t e d to the t e s t . Subsequently, juvenile the The hearing The court mother f a i l e d t o appear. issued an order for the mother t o appear b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r g e n e t i c t e s t i n g on J u l y 10, appeared w i t h 2012. 2012. the The She mother a s s e r t s on a p p e a l hearing from the the f a t h e r and order. On required to complete before child d i d not j u v e n i l e court submitting an July 10, r e c e i v e the w r i t t e n to the which she was genetic test, J u l y 10, 2012, f o r A u g u s t 27, 2012. address. set another hearing 3 on r e c e i v e d o r a l n o t i c e of c l i e n t - a u t h o r i z a t i o n form, the mother f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e the t h a t she the On 2120217 N o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g was p r e s u m a b l y s e n t t o t h e m o t h e r a t t h e address initially was f i l e d . the the complaint The f a t h e r a p p e a r e d w i t h c o u n s e l on t h a t d a t e , b u t mother juvenile p r o v i d e d b y t h e f a t h e r when d i d not appear. court entered Following the hearing, an o r d e r a d j u d i c a t i n g D.G. f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d and awarding him v i s i t a t i o n . t o be t h e The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t t h e i s s u e s o f c u s t o d y , v i s i t a t i o n , and c h i l d for trial on November 8, 2012. support The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court sent n o t i c e of the t r i a l and the s e t t i n g t o t h e mother t h e f a t h e r on A u g u s t 27, 2012. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d t r i a l as s c h e d u l e d on November 8, 2012. The f a t h e r a p p e a r e d , r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , and t h e t r i a l court received h i s testimony. The m o t h e r , a g a i n , to appear. failed The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d moved o u t of t h e r e s i d e n c e a t some p o i n t i n June o r J u l y 2012 a n d t h a t at the time of t r i a l she was l i v i n g i n a t r a i l e r p a r k . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on November 8, 2012, awarding child. the f a t h e r sole p h y s i c a l and l e g a l custody of the The m o t h e r was a w a r d e d u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n a n d was o r d e r e d t o pay c h i l d support. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e 4 2120217 mother t o p r o v i d e where she On the court and the father with an address resided. November 14, 2012, the f a t h e r f i l e d a motion for a " p i c k up o r d e r , " i n w h i c h he a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r , w i t h t h e f a t h e r ' s p e r m i s s i o n , had 2012, at failed the to custody p i c k e d up father's place return the order. child The 2012, custody of b u s i n e s s , to the father's a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r was judgment had the c h i l d on November that she had f a t h e r pursuant to the contained an motion but also n o t aware t h a t t h e November been 12, entered until informed h e r o f t h e j u d g m e n t when she p i c k e d up November the 8, father 12. On in the November 14, case 2012, an a t t o r n e y e n t e r e d an on b e h a l f o f t h e m o t h e r . On mother f i l e d a motion s t y l e d " V e r i f i e d and Vacate 11/8/12 Default Improper S e r v i c e / L a c k In the that body o f she had the the the for Request same d a t e , Custody f o r New mother a v e r r e d , not been s e r v e d w i t h the Due to Trial." under summons and the Amend, oath, complaint and t h a t she had n o t r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e November 8, 5 on appearance Motion to A l t e r , Judgment o f N o t i c e and motion, the c h i l d 2012, 2120217 t r i a l date. the The m o t h e r a l s o f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r a p i c k up On November father's motion enforcement child 14, and 2012, for a officer the pick i n the up j u v e n i l e court order, State r e t u r n the 16 2012, days p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and a u t h o r i z i n g any custody after without granted of the conducting father. mother the filed a hearing the mother's motion to a l t e r , On November requesting that 29, the amend, o r v a c a t e 2012, the mother's father visitation the filed to be the judgment. a motion supervised, without hearing. On December 4, 2012, to On denying w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d on November 30, 2012, a the her on m o t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r the law- o f A l a b a m a t o p i c k up c h i l d to the 30, November order. the Morgan Circuit the mother f i l e d Court. On a n o t i c e of December j u v e n i l e c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d as s u f f i c i e n t appeal to t h i s of appeal On served court. to t h i s appeal, with the 7, appeal 2012, the for a direct Thereafter, the mother f i l e d c o u r t on December 10, 2012. the mother argues t h a t complaint. I f her 6 she was not a notice properly assertion i s true, the 2120217 j u v e n i l e c o u r t w o u l d n o t have a t t a i n e d p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e mother t o e n t e r t h e d e f a u l t judgment, the judgment v o i d . defendant "'"'" When t h e s e r v i c e i s c o n t e s t e d as b e i n g improper thus r e n d e r i n g o f p r o c e s s on a or i n v a l i d , the 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 prove that s e r v i c e of process and was performed correctly F u n d i n g , LLC v . B o y l e s , 70 So. 3 d 1221, 2009) (quoting Dennis v. S t i l l Waters legally."'"'" LVNV 1227 ( A l a . C i v . App. R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n , 18 So. 3d 959, 961 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Bank o f America Corp. v. E d w a r d s , 881 So. 2d 403, 405 ( 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. S m i t h , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 ( A l a . 1993), Aktiengesellschaft, quoting 443 i n turn So. 2d However, t h e c o m p l e t i o n a n d f i l i n g prima facie Ex p a r t e 880, 884 Volkswagenwerk ( A l a . 1983)). of a return of service i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a r t y t o whom t h e s e r v i c e was s e n t h a s b e e n p r o p e r l y s e r v e d . Image A u t o , I n c . v. M i k e Kelley E n t e r s . , I n c . , 823 So. 2d 655, 658 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . See a l s o v. B a r k s d a l e , 93 So. 3 d 942, 945 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . "A p a r t y ' s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d s t a t e m e n t d e n y i n g s e r v i c e upon h i m i s n o t a d e q u a t e p r o o f t o a u t h o r i z e t h e i n v a l i d a t i o n o f a [process server's] r e t u r n . Raine v. F i r s t W e s t e r n Bank, 362 So. 2d 846 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o overcome the presumption o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f a [process 7 Hooie 2120217 s e r v e r ' s ] r e t u r n i s n o t met by a b a r e d e n i a l o f s e r v i c e by a c o n t e s t i n g p a r t y , b u t i t i s r e q u i r e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e be p r e s e n t e d t o s t r e n g t h e n or c o n f i r m such a d e n i a l b e f o r e the r e q u i r e d burden i s met. Such i s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f 'corroborating e v i d e n c e . ' S m i t h v. S m i t h , 268 A l a . 348, 106 So. 2d 260 ( 1 9 5 8 ) . " N o l a n v. N o l a n , In 429 So. server the mother corroborating of p r o c e s s . service return 1982). i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s e r v e d by p r i v a t e p r o c e s s 2012, the ( A l a . C i v . App. record 1, case, 598 i n the on May the present 2d 596, thus e s t a b l i s h i n g prima was served. The mother evidence to substantiate In f a c t , the facie father's evidence has offered her d e n i a l of that no service testimony indicates that t h e m o t h e r l i v e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e n o t e d on t h e summons u n t i l J u n e o r J u l y 2012. to substantiate Without f u r t h e r p r o o f h a v i n g been o f f e r e d t h e m o t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t , we conclude that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n r e j e c t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t s e r v i c e was defect i n service jurisdiction genetic not proper. of Further, of process the by juvenile the mother waived submitting court when herself she to appeared testing. " I n K i n g v i s i o n P a y - P e r - V i e w , L t d . v. A y e r s , 886 So. 2d 45, 53 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t q u o t e d a p p r o v i n g l y f r o m L o n n i n g v. L o n n i n g , 199 N.W. 2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1 9 7 2 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t : 8 any the for 2120217 "'"The r u l e s w h i c h g o v e r n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s c a s e a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . The filing of a pleading is a general appearance. Rule 65(c), Rules of C i v i l Procedure. J u r i s d i c t i o n of the person i n a c i v i l c a s e may be a c q u i r e d b y s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e i n t h e manner a n d f o r m p r e s c r i b e d b y law, o r by defendant's g e n e r a l appearance. Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic A s s o c i a t i o n , 258 Iowa 2 8 5 , 138 N.W.2d 914 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; Emery T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company v . Baker, 257 Iowa 1260, 136 N.W.2d 529 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; B a k e r v . B a k e r , [248 Iowa 361, 81 N.W.2d 1 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ] . A g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e i s a w a i v e r o f n o t i c e and i f a p a r t y appears i n p e r s o n o r b y a t t o r n e y he s u b m i t s h i m s e l f t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . Humboldt L i v e s t o c k A u c t i o n , I n c . v. B & H C a t t l e Co., 261 Iowa 419, 155 N.W.2d 478 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; O'Connor v . Y o u n g b l a d e , 250 Iowa 808, 96 N.W.2d 457 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . He may n o t t h e r e a f t e r avoid that jurisdiction by special a p p e a r a n c e . G a r d n e r v . B e c k , 195 Iowa 62, 189 N.W. 962 ( 1 9 2 2 ) ; 5 Am. J u r . 2d, Appearance § 16, p p . 491-92; 6 C.J.S., A p p e a r a n c e s § 24, p. 67."'" K l a e s e r v. M i l t o n , 47 So. 3d 817, The record t h a t t h e mother p e r s o n a l l y the c h i l d b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n J u l y 2012 t o s u b m i t t h e child the reveals to the paternity test 821 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . appeared as o r d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t . with Thus, m o t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y a p p e a r e d i n t h e c a s e when s h e c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , and the t r i a l c o u r t attained personal jurisdiction 9 over her. Any argument 2120217 concerning alleged t h e r e f o r e , been defects in service of process have, waived. The m o t h e r n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d t o reversal by failing to vacate the r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d and that initially defendant she failed note fails that to to appear a default appear at default judgment. t o answer the the time of The complaint trial. We j u d g m e n t i s w a r r a n t e d where a at trial. As this court has previously recognized: "While a f a i l u r e t o answer a c o m p l a i n t i s a common b a s i s f o r t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t , a d e f a u l t may be e n t e r e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , including ... f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t t r i a l . See R u l e 5 5 ( a ) [ , A l a . R. Civ. P.] ( p r o v i d i n g f o r e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t when a p a r t y f a i l s to 'otherwise defend'); Rule 55(b)(1) ( r e f e r r i n g to the e n t r y of a d e f a u l t f o r a p a r t y ' s ' f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r ' ) ; T r i p l e D T r u c k i n g , I n c . v. T r i S a n d s , I n c . , 840 So. 2d 869 ( A l a . 2002) ( n o t e 2 and accompanying t e x t ) . Where a d e f a u l t i s e n t e r e d b e c a u s e o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t t o answer t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e r e w o u l d n a t u r a l l y be a f o c u s on the d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r r e l i e f from the d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n t h e e f f o r t t o f i n d an a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e . See, e.g., R u d o l p h v. P h i l y a w , 909 So. 2d 200 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . " S u m l i n v. S u m l i n , 931 So. 2d 40, 46 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 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., ... "[t]he court s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t by d e f a u l t on t h e m o t i o n filed not l a t e r than t h i r t y 2005) . may of a p a r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 10 2120217 judgment." Rule 55(dc) s h o r t e n s the p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d to days i n cases b e f o r e the Morgan A u t h o r i t y 1988), our district Sewer S e r v i c e , supreme court court. Inc., established j u d g e s t o f o l l o w when e x e r c i s i n g t h e conferred in under Rule 5 5 ( c ) . Brantley v. Glover, 84 I n K i r t l a n d v. 524 an So. 14 Fort 2d 600 (Ala. analysis for trial discretionary authority As t h i s c o u r t r e c e n t l y s u m m a r i z e d So. 3d 77 ( A l a . C i v . App. "'A t r i a l c o u r t has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny a motion to s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment. K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . Sewer S e r v . , Inc., 524 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 1988) . I n r e v i e w i n g an a p p e a l f r o m a t r i a l court's order r e f u s i n g to set aside a default j u d g m e n t , t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r in refusing to set aside the default judgment the trial court exceeded i t s discretion. 524 So. 2d at 604. That d i s c r e t i o n , although broad, requires the t r i a l c o u r t t o b a l a n c e two c o m p e t i n g p o l i c y interests associated with default judgments: the need t o promote j u d i c i a l economy and a l i t i g a n t ' s r i g h t t o d e f e n d an a c t i o n on t h e m e r i t s . 524 So. 2d a t 604. These i n t e r e s t s must be b a l a n c e d u n d e r t h e two-step process e s t a b l i s h e d i n K i r t l a n d . "'We b e g i n the b a l a n c i n g p r o c e s s w i t h the presumption that cases should be d e c i d e d on the merits whenever i t i s p r a c t i c a b l e t o do s o . 524 So. 2d a t 604. The trial court must then apply a three-factor analysis f i r s t established in Ex p a r t e I l l i n o i s C e n t r a l G u l f R.R., 514 So. 2d 1283 ( A l a . 1987), in deciding 11 2011): 2120217 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 t o the t r i a l c o u r t i n making t h a t d e c i s i o n s h o u l d n o t be e x e r c i s e d w i t h o u t considering t h e 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 the 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 . " 524 So. 2d a t 605.' "Zeller 2006). v. Bailey, 950 So. 2d 1149, 1152-53 ( A l a . "As we s t a t e d i n R i c h a r d s o n v. I n t e g r i t y B i b l e C h u r c h , I n c . , 897 So. 2d 345 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) : "'Because o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i n t e r e s t o f p r e s e r v i n g a p a r t y ' s r i g h t t o a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t where a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t i t has considered the mandatory Kirtland f a c t o r s i n denying a motion to set aside a d e f a u l t judgment, s u c h as where a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] motion i s denied by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , t h e d e n i a l o f t h e 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 w i l l be r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r the t r i a l court to address the K i r t l a n d factors.' "897 So. 2d a t 349. However, i n o r d e r t o t r i g g e r t h e mandatory r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r 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 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 must a l l e g e and p r o v i d e 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 e v i d e n c e 12 2120217 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 hold the t r i a l court 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 denied by o p e r a t i o n o f law w i t h o u t having a p p l i e d t h e K i r t l a n d a n a l y s i s . ' ) . See a l s o M a i d e n 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 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( n o t i n g t h a t we w i l l n o t 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 law o f a motion 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 when t h e movant f a i l s t o a r g u e the e x i s t e n c e of t h e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s i n h i s or h e r motion)." 84 So. 3d a t 8 0 - 8 1 ( f o o t n o t e omitted). As s u c h , t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y has t h e i n i t i a l burden o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g the three Kirtland factors. C a r r o l l v. W i l l i a m s , the existence of As o u r supreme c o u r t stated i n 6 So. 3d 463 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) : "The l a w i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n A l a b a m a t h a t t h e defaulting party has the i n i t i a l burden of demonstrating the existence of the three K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . Ex p a r t e F a m i l y D o l l a r S t o r e s o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 906 So. 2d 892, 899-900 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; P h i l l i p s v. R a n d o l p h , 828 So. 2d 269, 278 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d K i r t l a n d , 524 So. 2d a t 605-08. ... W i t h r e g a r d t o a m e r i t o r i o u s defense i n the context of a K i r t l a n d a n a l y s i s , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : "'[A] defaulting party has satisfactorily made a showing of a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e when a l l e g a t i o n s i n an answer o r i n a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e default judgment and i t s supporting affidavits, i f proven a t t r i a l , would constitute a complete defense to the a c t i o n , o r when s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n a d d u c e d e i t h e r b y way o f a f f i d a v i t o r by some o t h e r means t o w a r r a n t s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r y .... 13 2120217 "'The a l l e g a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n the a n s w e r and i n t h e m o t i o n must be more t h a n mere b a r e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h o u t f a c t u a l s u p p o r t ; t h e y must c o u n t e r t h e c a u s e o f action averred in the complaint with specificity--namely, by setting forth r e l e v a n t l e g a l g r o u n d s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a c r e d i b l e f a c t u a l b a s i s . Such a l l e g a t i o n s would c o n s t i t u t e a " p l a u s i b l e defense."' "Kirtland, 6 So. 451 524 So. 2d a t 606 3d a t 467-68. See also (emphasis added)." B a k e r v. J o n e s , 614 So. 2d 450, ( A l a . 1993). In the triggered present the case, court's the mother's obligation to verified conduct a Kirtland a n a l y s i s by a l l e g i n g , u n d e r o a t h and w i t h s u p p o r t i n g arguments, (1) the will father that not she has be judgment i s s e t a s i d e ; a meritorious (3) that she facts defense; unfairly prejudiced and motion was (2) i f the not and that default culpable in f a i l i n g t o a p p e a r , b e c a u s e she d i d n o t r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e n o t i c e of the trial date. The mother's contention that she has a m e r i t o r i o u s defense to the f a t h e r ' s custody c l a i m i s supported by her verified motion, i n which she avers c r i m i n a l r e c o r d , t h a t t h e m i n o r c h i l d has the child's birth, April 2012 that the father w i t h o u t o f f e r i n g any 14 that has l i v e d w i t h her abandoned support she f o r the the since child child, no in that 2120217 the father has a c r i m i n a l record, and that the a c c u s t o m e d t o l i v i n g w i t h h e r two o l d e r s i b l i n g s . also averred i n her motion that u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e l a y . the father child The would is mother not be She f u r t h e r a s s e r t s u n d e r o a t h i n t h e v e r i f i e d m o t i o n t h a t t h e d e f a u l t was n o t a r e s u l t o f h e r c u l p a b l e c o n d u c t , b e c a u s e , she c o n t e n d s , she h a d moved out o f t h e house she h a d s h a r e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r i n l a t e May 2012, t h e n o t i c e s f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t were m a i l e d t o t h a t old a d d r e s s , and she d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e November 8, 2012, t r i a l date. The m o 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 denied by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on November 28, 2012. The was order e n t e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t two d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e d e n i a l by operation mother's of law, i n which the c o u r t p u r p o r t e d l y motion, provides no indication that denied the the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had c o n s i d e r e d the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s . Because the mother met the initial burden by providing sufficient facts and a r g u m e n t s t o a p p l y t h e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s and b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d does not motion juvenile indicate that by applying court's a the juvenile Kirtland analysis, d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n 15 court considered we reverse of law of the the the mother's 2120217 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 and remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o h o l d an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n and t o c o n s i d e r factors in judgment. 'is determining We note, however, n o t t o be c o n s t r u e d aside to that set the K i r t l a n d I n c . , 897 So. the default " o u r mandate i n t h i s [but] o n l y f a c t o r s i n d e c i d i n g whether 2d 345, 349 court to set v. I n t e g r i t y ( A l a . C i v . App. q u o t i n g W h i t e v. W e s t m o r e l a n d , 680 So. 2d 348, 349 App. case c o u r t must s e t that the t r i a l the d e f a u l t judgment.'" R i c h a r d s o n Church, Kirtland aside t o mean t h a t t h e t r i a l the d e f a u l t judgment, must a p p l y aside whether the Bible 2004), (Ala. Civ. 1996). T h i s h o l d i n g p r e t e r m i t s d i s c u s s i o n on t h e m o t h e r ' s argument concerning t h e award o f c u s t o d y other of the c h i l d to the father. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n Thomas, J . , concurs in and Moore, the 16 result, JJ., without concur. 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.