Deborah Ann Stevens Boudreaux et al. v. Mendal Kemp and Thomasine Kemp Edwards

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:04/16/2010 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080309 Deborah Ann S t e v e n s Boudreaux e t a l . v. Mendal Kemp and Thomasine Kemp Edwards Appeal SHAW, from Cherokee C i r c u i t (CV-07-122) Court Justice. D e b o r a h Ann S t e v e n s B o u d r e a u x , S h e l i a J o y S t e v e n s , Dena H a r p e r John James Stallings, Stevens, Richard Melinda Craig Allen Harper, Luanne M e r r i t t Stevens, Sherry Jean Janie Nix, Michael Charles Edmond Harper, Harper Shows, Mariann 1080309 M e r r i t t H o l d e r , W a r r e n Thomas S t e v e n s , R a c h e l J o n n e t t e S t e v e n s T h r a s h e r , and P a u l a L . T i d w e l l , E. Stevens (hereinafter appellants"), the purported h e i r s o f Frank collectively appeal from an o r d e r referred t o as " t h e o f t h e Cherokee Circuit C o u r t denying t h e i r motion f o r r e l i e f from a d e f a u l t judgment in favor o f Mendal plaintiffs below, Kemp and Thomasine i n Kemp e n f o r c e an a l l e g e d oral and Edwards's Kemp Edwards, t h e action contract to devise. seeking t o We r e v e r s e a n d remand. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y Kemp Stevens a n d Edwards a r e t h e nephew and n i e c e a n d t h e nephew a n d n i e c e b y m a r r i a g e h u s b a n d , F r a n k E. S t e v e n s . of Bernice of Bernice's A c c o r d i n g t o Kemp a n d E d w a r d s , i n o r a r o u n d 1995, B e r n i c e a n d F r a n k , who were c h i l d l e s s , agreed t o devise their entire orally e s t a t e t o Kemp a n d E d w a r d s i n exchange f o r t h e promise t o care f o r B e r n i c e and Frank t h e i r respective deaths. B e r n i c e d i e d i n June 1997. Kemp a n d Edwards allege reminded them Frank renewed allegedly that, immediately of their the promising promise, before her death, and, f o l l o w i n g aforementioned "that oral 2 Bernice her death, agreement, i n consideration until again f o r [Kemp a n d 1080309 Edwards's] l o o k i n g a f t e r [ F r a n k ] d u r i n g t h e remainder natural l i f e , of his ... [ F r a n k ] w o u l d t r a n s f e r t o [Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ] a l l t h e money a n d p r o p e r t y he owned a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h . " A c c o r d i n g t o Kemp a n d E d w a r d s , a t a l l t i m e s p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o , they a c t e d i n accordance w i t h and f u l l y performed the a l l e g e d o r a l Frank 1973. he died t h e terms o f agreement. i n March 2007, leaving a will executed i n F r a n k ' s w i l l l e f t n o t h i n g t o Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ; i n s t e a d , bequeathed h i s entire estate to Bernice. Frank's will c o n t a i n e d no p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e d i s p o s a l o f h i s a s s e t s s h o u l d B e r n i c e precede In him i n death. May 2 0 0 7 , F r a n k ' s the Cherokee Probate will was s u b m i t t e d f o r p r o b a t e t o C o u r t ; Tim Burgess r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Frank's e s t a t e . potential guardian heirs was ad l i t e m potential heirs, appointed retained a n d on J u l y was named p e r s o n a l A g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r any by the probate c o u r t . The a g e n e a l o g i s t t o d i s c o v e r any 9, 2 0 0 7 , t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m f i l e d a r e p o r t i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , i d e n t i f y i n g a t o t a l o f 15 grandnieces addresses and grandnephews o f Frank. f o r t h e 15 i d e n t i f i e d h e i r s , 3 The r e p o r t listed a l l o f whom were n o t 1080309 residents of Alabama, and specifically included the appellants. I n September 2 0 0 7 , Kemp a n d Edwards f i l e d a c l a i m Frank's estate underlying judgment i n the probate action declaring court and a l s o i n t h e Cherokee C i r c u i t that under t h e a l l e g e d Court filed the seeking a oral contract t o d e v i s e , " t h e r e m a i n i n g money a s s e t s a n d p r o p e r t y o f F r a n k E. S t e v e n s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y against of the estate o f [Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ] . " The c o m p l a i n t named as d e f e n d a n t s B u r g e s s , i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s personal by representative name, 1 o f Frank's e s t a t e , f i v e a l l e g e d h e i r s and any r e m a i n i n g however, r e f e r e n c e unknown h e i r s . I t did or include the remaining h e i r s not, identified i n the genealogy report f i l e d i n theproceeding i n the probate court. 21, Upon m o t i o n o f Kemp a n d E d w a r d s , f i l e d on September 2 0 0 7 , a n d a c c o m p a n i e d b y an a f f i d a v i t a t t e s t i n g t o t h e i r i n a b i l i t y a f t e r " d i l i g e n t i n q u i r y " t o d e t e r m i n e t h e names a n d a d d r e s s e s o f F r a n k ' s h e i r s , Kemp a n d Edwards were p e r m i t t e d b y T h e c o m p l a i n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e named h e i r s h a d b e e n d i s c o v e r e d b y means o f a n " I n t e r n e t s e a r c h " o f p o s s i b l e h e i r s p e r f o r m e d b y t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m a p p o i n t e d i n t h e p e n d i n g probate case. These f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s were t h e f i r s t five h e i r s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s r e p o r t and a r e f i v e of the appellants. 1 4 1080309 the trial court t o serve remaining unknown beginning heirs September the by five named publication. 27, 2007, notice heirs Thereafter, 2 of the declaratory- j u d g m e n t a c t i o n was p u b l i s h e d i n t h e C h e r o k e e C o u n t y a l o c a l newspaper, f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e On O c t o b e r 8, 2007, B u r g e s s f i l e d Edwards's complaint and any Herald, weeks. an a n s w e r t o Kemp a n d d e n y i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r a l contract t o d e v i s e a n d a v e r r i n g t h a t , i f Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s a l l e g a t i o n s were true, Frauds. 3 their claims Burgess's w o u l d be b a r r e d answer admitted by t h e S t a t u t e o f that Frank was n o t As d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l b e l o w , R u l e 4 . 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t "[b]efore s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n c a n be made i n an a c t i o n where t h e i d e n t i t y or residence o f a d e f e n d a n t i s unknown ... an a f f i d a v i t o f a p a r t y o r t h e p a r t y ' s c o u n s e l must be f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u r t a v e r r i n g t h a t s e r v i c e o f summons o r o t h e r p r o c e s s c a n n o t be made b e c a u s e e i t h e r t h e r e s i d e n c e i s unknown t o t h e a f f i a n t and c a n n o t w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e be a s c e r t a i n e d , o r , t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s unknown " 2 On O c t o b e r 2, 2007, b e f o r e f i l i n g h i s a n s w e r , B u r g e s s h a d moved t o d i s m i s s Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o § 4 3 - 2 - 1 3 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , on g r o u n d s t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e declaratory-judgment a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d , the six-month claims p e r i o d i n the probate proceeding had not e x p i r e d , nor had B u r g e s s , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f F r a n k ' s e s t a t e , c o n t e s t e d Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s c l a i m . S e c t i o n 43-2-131 s t a t e s t h a t " [ n ] o c i v i l a c t i o n must be commenced a g a i n s t an e x e c u t o r or a d m i n i s t r a t o r , as s u c h , u n t i l s i x months a f t e r t h e g r a n t o f l e t t e r s testamentary or of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , unless the executor or a d m i n i s t r a t o r has g i v e n n o t i c e o f t h e d i s a l l o w a n c e o f t h e c l a i m . " I n h i s m o t i o n , B u r g e s s f u r t h e r a r g u e d , among o t h e r 3 5 1080309 s u r v i v e d by h i s p a r e n t s o r g r a n d p a r e n t s , by any s i b l i n g s , or by a n y n i e c e s a n d n e p h e w s ; h o w e v e r , i n t h a t p l e a d i n g , B u r g e s s specifically stated that "affidavits of h e i r s h i p of Frank E . S t e v e n s have b e e n f i l e d i n t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t . . . w h i c h . . . s e t f o r t h t h e names a n d a d d r e s s e s o f t h e h e i r s a t l a w o f F r a n k E . Stevens." None o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s o r t h e o t h e r h e i r s answered i n response publication, applied that t o Kemp a n d , on F e b r u a r y 5, f o r the entry of d e f a u l t same default" unnamed. date, the c i r c u i t against the heirs and Edwards's 2008, Kemp appeared or service by and Edwards a n d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . On clerk executed an " e n t r y o f o f t h e e s t a t e - - b o t h named a n d 4 On F e b r u a r y 20, 2008, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a b e n c h trial. No h e i r s entry of default. appeared o r moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e p r e t r i a l However, a s n o t e d b y Kemp a n d E d w a r d s , t h e t h i n g s , t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t named i m p r o p e r p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t denied t h e motion, i t appears t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o o k no a c t i o n u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 11, 2008, when B u r g e s s f i l e d a n o t i c e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t F r a n k ' s e s t a t e i n t h e p r o b a t e a c t i o n h a d been " d e n i e d i n whole." The default. 4 record before us does 6 not contain a judgment by 1080309 r e c o r d does r e f l e c t t h a t " s e v e r a l " o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s the t r i a l . the w i f e was Except f o r the testimony o f James R i c h a r d presented attended o f M e l i s s a O'Neal H a r p e r , H a r p e r , F r a n k ' s grandnephew, w h i c h by t h e p e r s o n a l representative, no h e i r s a n d none o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d o r were h e a r d b y the c i r c u i t c o u r t d u r i n g t h e bench t r i a l . evidence, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t took t h e matter under On J u l y 8, 2008, t h e c i r c u i t favor had At the close of the court entered o f Kemp a n d E d w a r d s , c o n c l u d i n g submission. a judgment i n t h a t Kemp a n d Edwards demonstrated by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence that "the a g r e e m e n t a l l e g e d b y [Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ] e x i s t e d a n d t h a t t h e y [had] performed order, as r e q u e s t e d Edwards, trust i n accordance with the c i r c u i t i n favor i n the t r i a l court t h e agreement." brief further filed imposed a In i t s b y Kemp a n d constructive o f Kemp a n d Edwards on t h e a s s e t s of Frank's e s t a t e , s u b j e c t t o payment o f t h e d e b t s o f t h e e s t a t e , i f a n y , and t h e expenses of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e . On A u g u s t 7, 2008, B u r g e s s f i l e d a motion t o vacate the j u d g m e n t o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r a new t r i a l . same d a t e , the appellants f o r a new t r i a l also f i l e d a postjudgment On that motion a n d an a c c o m p a n y i n g m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o s t a y t h e 7 1080309 execution the of the c i r c u i t appellants c o u r t ' s judgment. a r g u e d , among o t h e r j u d g m e n t was i m p r o p e r and t h a t In their things, that motion, the default t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l b e c a u s e , t h e y s a i d , s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n was i m p r o p e r under t h e circumstances. 5 Kemp a n d Edwards moved t o s t r i k e a n y p l e a d i n g s the appellants on grounds that the f i l e d by appellants were dispensable, unnecessary p a r t i e s , that they lacked standing t o pursue the requested represented estate, Rule b y B u r g e s s , as p e r s o n a l and t h a t they had f a i l e d 24, A l a . R. C i v . court had r e l i e f b e c a u s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were b e i n g struck failed P. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Frank's t o move t o i n t e r v e n e Following a hearing, the appellants' pleadings to intervene, and because, i n t e r e s t s were a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d under the c i r c u i t on g r o u n d s t h a t they i t concluded, their by Burgess. The c i r c u i t T h e y a l s o a r g u e d t h a t a new t r i a l was n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e , t h e y s a i d , t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y Kemp a n d Edwards was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s ; because o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o d e v i s e may n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d s o l e l y b y t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e ; a n d b e c a u s e o f an a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t Burgess's counsel had p r e v i o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d Kemp i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h Kemp was named c o n s e r v a t o r o f F r a n k ' s e s t a t e . 5 8 1080309 court also denied Burgess's postjudgment motion. followed. This appeal 6 Discussion The regard appellants allege four to the circuit Edwards. Initially, publication was determinative court's improper. filed more s e t aside within resolution than s i x months appellants' as a R u l e 55(c), of this Corp., default, after Ala. f o r a new R. C i v . P., motion 4 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 , 132 rendered i n advance i s interlocutory until Co. v . C a r m i c h a e l , B u r g e s s , as p e r s o n a l does n o t a p p e a l . (Ala. against final See 1 9 8 2 ) ("A one of disposition omitted)); 3 8 3 S o . 2 d 5 3 9 , 542 representative 9 filed j u d g m e n t became f i n a l . as t o a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s . " ( c i t a t i o n 6 of 2008, is Credit the entry 7, defendants, Motor i s August several made issue j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t was t i m e l y after the default Hallman v. Marion by Our the the default 30 d a y s judgment o f Kemp a n d c l e r k and s t y l e d as a motion construe postjudgment motion to i n favor we a d d r e s s t h e i r a r g u m e n t t h a t s e r v i c e b y d e f a u l t by t h e c i r c u i t we judgment with of the appeal. Although trial, separate grounds of e r r o r of Frank's Ford (Ala. estate, 1080309 1980) ("[A] one of j u d g m e n t by several disposition So. of 3d default a final under defendants, i s made a s Correctional Med. , i s no and 55(c)[, A l a . R. 2d 1092, [ A l a . R. become final the had days default In interlocutory, [Ms. 2071001, 200 9) until such C i v . P.,] June ("[B]ecause interlocutory from against ( A l a . C i v . App. ... because was an 19, an e n t r y order, i t i s order is remaining not available the Ellison, 1978) of (noting both that the o p e r a t i o n of Rule the judgment and d i d not entry of " and that defendant thereafter v. 2009] r e g a r d l e s s o f when not a f i n a l appealable u n t i l final d e f e n d a n t s . " ) ; McConico the judgment "defendant to f i l e a motion to set aside 952 2d 353 the judgment"). Cameron v. Tillis, So. 352, t h i s C o u r t s e t out the f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d t o an i n advance L a w l e r M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v . C i v . P.,] and dismissing thirty 1094 judgment 54(b), an relief 361 default Inc., more t h a n i s made."); and "the is ( A l a . C i v . App. request So. rendered to a l l the Servs., judgment, Rule default, order r e f u s i n g to set aside (Ala. 2006), of review a p p l i c a b l e a default judgment: "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n t h e c a s e o f an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e , or r e f u s i n g 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 p r o c e e d s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e has g r e a t d i s c r e t i o n , and h i s j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t be 10 1080309 d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s he has c l e a r l y [exceeded] such d i s c r e t i o n . ' R o b e r t s v. W e t t l i n , 431 So. 2d 524, 526 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . However, '[w]hen t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l [of a r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t ] t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t , d i s c r e t i o n has no p l a c e f o r o p e r a t i o n . I f the judgment i s v o i d , i t i s t o be s e t a s i d e ; i f i t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d . ' S m i t h v. C l a r k , 468 So. 2d 138, 141 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . " Applying present the c a s e , we foregoing conclude standard to t h a t the d e f a u l t the facts of judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t the h e i r s i s v o i d . "The f a i l u r e t o e f f e c t p r o p e r s e r v i c e u n d e r R u l e 4, A l a . R. C i v . P., d e p r i v e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f 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 d e f e n d a n t and r e n d e r s a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t v o i d . Cameron v. T i l l i s , 952 So. 2d 352 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Image A u t o , I n c . v. M i k e K e l l e y E n t e r s . , I n c . , [823 So. 2d 655, 657 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] . I n Bank o f A m e r i c a [ C o r p . v. E d w a r d s , 881 So. 2d 403 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] , o u r supreme c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d : "'"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 ' p e r f e c t e d s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s g i v i n g n o t i c e t o the d e f e n d a n t o f t h e s u i t b e i n g b r o u g h t . ' Ex p a r t e 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 . 1 9 8 3 ) . 'When t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n t e s t e d as b e i n g i m p r o p e r o r i n v a l i d , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o v e t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s was p e r f o r m e d c o r r e c t l y and l e g a l l y . ' I d . A judgment rendered a g a i n s t a defendant i n the absence of personal jurisdiction over that d e f e n d a n t 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 Industries, I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61 ( A l a . 1989)."' 11 the 1080309 "881 So. 2d a t 405, q u o t i n g 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 . 1 9 9 3 ) . See a l so N o r t h b r o o k [Indem. Co. v . W e s t g a t e , L t d . , ] 769 So. 2d [890] a t 893 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] . "Rule 4 . 3 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n s t h e procedure f o r s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n and p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part, "'(1) Affidavit Necessary. Before s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n c a n be made i n an a c t i o n where t h e i d e n t i t y o r r e s i d e n c e o f a d e f e n d a n t i s unknown ... o r where t h e d e f e n d a n t a v o i d s s e r v i c e , an a f f i d a v i t o f a p a r t y o r t h e p a r t y ' s c o u n s e l must be f i l e d with the court averring that service o f summons o r o t h e r p r o c e s s c a n n o t be made b e c a u s e e i t h e r t h e r e s i d e n c e i s unknown t o the a f f i a n t and cannot w i t h reasonable d i l i g e n c e be a s c e r t a i n e d , o r , t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s unknown ... o r , t h e defendant avoids s e r v i c e , a v e r r i n g f a c t s showing such avoidance. " ' ( 2 ) How P u b l i s h e d . Upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e a f f i d a v i t t h e c l e r k s h a l l d i r e c t that service of n o t i c e be made by publication i n a newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n the county i n which the c o m p l a i n t i s f i l e d ; a n d , when p u b l i c a t i o n i s a u t h o r i z e d under s u b d i v i s i o n 4.3(c), a l s o i n the county of the defendant's l a s t known l o c a t i o n o r r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I f no n e w s p a p e r o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i s p u b l i s h e d i n the county, t h e n p u b l i c a t i o n s h a l l be i n a n e w s p a p e r o f general circulation published i n an a d j o i n i n g county.'" 12 1080309 N i c h o l s v . P a t e , 992 So. 2d 734, 736-37 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . 7 I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , a s n o t e d a b o v e , Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s affidavit, which was f i l e d i n support of t h e i r request t o serve t h e h e i r s o f Frank's e s t a t e by p u b l i c a t i o n , s t a t e d the names and addresses "after diligent appellants of Frank's inquiry." argue that heirs remained that unknown In t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s Court, the Kemp a n d Edwards d i d not actually exercise reasonable d i l i g e n c e i n attempting t o ascertain the names a n d a d d r e s s e s Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s of Frank's affidavit heirs. We a g r e e . was s u f f i c i e n t Although t o s a t i s f y the t e c h n i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 4 . 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d the averments unpersuaded i n that affidavit n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , we remain t h a t d i l i g e n t i n q u i r y was, i n f a c t , u n d e r t a k e n a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 4.3. Compare S h a d d i x v . S h a d d i x , 603 So. 2 d B e f o r e t h e most r e c e n t amendment t o R u l e 4.3, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h was e f f e c t i v e A u g u s t 1, 2004, a n d w h i c h removed the word " r e s i d e n t " from t h e t e x t o f Rule 4 . 3 ( c ) , t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e had c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d , w i t h a s i n g l e noted e x c e p t i o n , " t h a t p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d n o t be o b t a i n e d over a n o n r e s i d e n t defendant through s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . " Vogus v. A n g r y , 744 So. 2d 934, 936 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( c i t i n g S h a d d i x v . S h a d d i x , 603 So. 2 d 1096, 1098 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . See a l s o W i s e v . S i e g e l , 527 So. 2d 1281, 1282 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , 910 So. 2d 1284, 1287 n.5 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . 7 13 1080309 1096, not 1097-98 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) ( f i n d i n g affirmatively appear from that an e x a m i n a t i o n " i t [did] of the record t h a t a d i l i g e n t e f f o r t t o l o c a t e t h e [ d e f e n d a n t ] was made ... o r t h a t s u c h an e f f o r t w o u l d have p r o v e n Specifically, although we have futile"). previously " ' [ i ] t i snot reasonable or l o g i c a l t o require by a method other than publication] where held [service f i r s t the defendant's r e s i d e n c e i s unknown,'" s e e K i l p a t r i c k v . K i l p a t r i c k , 2d 729, 731 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g 494 So. 2d reflects unknown 645, 647 that or, at least, Brooks ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ) , the appellants' would addresses n o t have that 628 So. v. Brooks, the record were n o t , i n f a c t , remained s o upon t h e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e b y Kemp a n d E d w a r d s . As s e t out i n the above, proceeding the guardian ad l i t e m ' s i n the probate court, genealogy which report identified a l l of Frank's p o t e n t i a l h e i r s i n c l u d i n g the appellants--was c l e a r l y filed motion is before the p l a i n t i f f s ' t o s e r v e F r a n k ' s h e i r s b y p u b l i c a t i o n were f i l e d . undisputed that Kemp probate p r o c e e d i n g b y before c o m p l a i n t and t h e accompanying a n d Edwards It had appeared i n that f i l i n g a c l a i m against Frank's estate-- the declaratory-judgment 14 action was filed i n the 1080309 circuit court. F u r t h e r , as t h e a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e d posttrial motion, Burgess's complaint also pointed answer out that t o Kemp i n their and Edwards's i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g any h e i r s was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n t h e f i l e i n the probate court p r o c e e d i n g , w h i c h Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s c o m p l a i n t i n d i c a t e d had p r e v i o u s l y accessed regarding Frank's h e i r s . i n their search they f o r information D e s p i t e t h a t d i s c l o s u r e , no a c t i o n s were t a k e n b y Kemp a n d Edwards t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o t h e h e i r s found by t h e guardian ad l i t e m . affidavit purported d i d not i d e n t i f y review I n f a c t , Kemp a n d E d w a r d s ' s any e f f o r t s , of the contents t h a t were made i n an a t t e m p t of the probate t o l o c a t e Frank's s e e k i n g t o s e r v e them b y p u b l i c a t i o n . Stringer, 518 So. 2 d 65 plaintiffs' failure to other As n o t e d ( A l a . 1987), take even with than court heirs the file, before i n March v. regard the minimal to the step of c o n s u l t i n g telephone d i r e c t o r i e s , "reasonable d i l i g e n c e would suggest that publication before [such steps] be e m p l o y e d . " us d e m o n s t r a t e s be tried before 518 So. 2 d a t 70. service by The r e c o r d t h a t t h e names a n d a d d r e s s e s of the a p p e l l a n t s c o u l d have b e e n e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n e d , e n a b l i n g them to be s e r v e d b y a method o t h e r t h a n 15 publication. 1080309 This exercise Court due has previously diligence process precludes held i n perfecting that "'[f]ailure personal n o t i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . ' " service Reid to of v. T i n g l e , 716 So. 2d 1190, 1195 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Shaddix v. Shaddix, Equitable 2d 603 So. 2d a t 1098, w h i c h c i t e s i n turn Sams v. L i f e Assurance Soc'y o f t h e U n i t e d States, 402 So. 999 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ) . C i v i l Appeals I n Sams, s u p r a , the Court of observed: "The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t a p p e l l a n t knew where I r i s Holmes l i v e d , knew h e r c o r r e c t a d d r e s s a t a l l t i m e s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s i n q u i r y a n d , y e t , made no e f f o r t t o serve her with process a f t e r the i n i t i a l e f f o r t f a i l e d b e c a u s e o f an e r r o n e o u s a d d r e s s . A p l a i n t i f f must e x e r c i s e due d i l i g e n c e i n p e r f e c t i n g p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on a d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e f a i l u r e t o do s o p r e c l u d e s n o t i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n . W h i t f i e l d v . S a n d e r s , A l a . , 366 So. 2d 258 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y n o t i f y a d e f e n d a n t o f t h e a c t i o n f i l e d against him deprives the t r i a l court of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p a r t y and a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t s a i d p a r t y w o u l d be v o i d . W h i t f i e l d v. Sanders, s u p r a . "The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t Tommie Sams was f u l l y aware o f I r i s Holmes's a d d r e s s a t a l l t i m e s i n question. Under such circumstances notice by p u b l i c a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o i n v e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e d e f a u l t judgment r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t h e r was v o i d a n d p r o p e r l y s e t aside." 402 So. Edwards 2d a t 1 0 0 1 . may n o t have Similarly, been fully 16 here, although aware of Kemp a n d t h e names and 1080309 addresses of a l l Frank's h e i r s , i n c l u d i n g the a p p e l l a n t s , i t appears that that information court proceedings in participating--before circuit court. was c o n t a i n e d which they Kemp filed and their i n the probate Edwards complaint were i n the Thus, t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e names a n d a d d r e s s e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s were r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e w i t h no additional investigative Edwards's p a r t and t h a t could have, w i t h order that certified efforts on Kemp the appellants Under d i l i g e n c e , been could these have e a s i l y ascertained i n been circumstances, served notice p u b l i c a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n a p p e l l a n t s , and t h e d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t In that, their even brief to this assuming and t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' names a n d a d d r e s s e s reasonable mail. required that Court, Kemp notice by by by over the them i s v o i d . a n d Edwards publication argue was i n s u f f i c i e n t , t h e a p p e l l a n t s w a i v e d any d e f e c t s i n s e r v i c e by a t t e n d i n g t h e b e n c h t r i a l o f t h i s m a t t e r on F e b r u a r y 20, 2008. As but i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , t h e r e c o r d does r e f l e c t t h a t c e r t a i n o f , not a l l , the appellants attended the t r i a l , presumably b e c a u s e o f t h e n o t i c e c o n v e y e d t o them b y B u r g e s s i n t h e c a s e pending i n the probate court. Further, 17 i ti s true that this 1080309 C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may defects in proceedings. 191 So. order 2d service See, 519, by e.g., 521 for a court voluntarily C o o p e r v. W a t t s , 280 (1966) parte Gunter, (1919)). present trial 17 However, the few not actually represented by counsel, 2d 412, 415-16 party shows jurisdiction Finest of Chocolate Therefore, 313, of 315, has no appellants A l a . 236, 239, the law and person 86 (quoting So. 146, 147 the the parties, were not participate in the See Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 900 as not ("'An a p p e a r a n c e i n an action o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t by w h i c h his intention the court.'" 349 to submit (quoting So. 2d 1117, himself to C o c k r e l l v. 1120 the World's (Ala. 1977)). e v i d e n c e o f mere a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e t r i a l by some o f M o r e o v e r , d e s p i t e Kemp Edwards's arguments t o the c o n t r a r y , the a p p e l l a n t s trial there a p p l i c a t i o n to who in attend did the a p p e l l a n t s i s not c o m p e l l i n g . the that did "appear" ( A l a . 2004) Co., the i s elementary i n any m e a n i n g f u l way. i n v o l v e s some s u b m i s s i o n a App. that principle did So. in or v o l u n t a r y appearance.'" Ala. case--where proceeding ("'It t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n must be s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s Ex appearing waive c o u l d not attending have a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e 18 and trial 1080309 because of t h e p r e v i o u s clerk. e n t r y o f d e f a u l t a g a i n s t them b y t h e See M c G u g i n v. M c G u g i n , 23 So. 3d 682, 684 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( " A f t e r an e n t r y o f d e f a u l t , t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y ' l o s e s h i s s t a n d i n g i n c o u r t , c a n n o t a p p e a r i n a n y way, c a n n o t adduce any hearing.'" 665, evidence (quoting and Dorcal, cannot be heard at the final I n c . v. X e r o x C o r p . , 398 So. 2 d 670 ( A l a . 1981)) ( a d d i t i o n a l c i t a t i o n s omitted)). W h e t h e r t h e h e i r s t o F r a n k ' s e s t a t e were n e c e s s a r y indispensable parties to this litigation, an i s s u e we do n o t r e a c h , we f i n d t h a t h a v i n g named t h e h e i r s as d e f e n d a n t s , and and Edwards were r e q u i r e d t o p r o p e r l y s e r v e Kemp them as p r o v i d e d f o r b y R u l e 4.3. H a v i n g f a i l e d t o do s o , t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e h e i r s was v o i d , s e e Ex p a r t e W i l s o n Lumber Co., 410 So. 2d 407, 409 ( A l a . 1982) ("'To a u t h o r i z e a c o u r t to proceed, i t must acquire jurisdiction over defendant i n some mode a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w , b y s e r v i c e o r o t h e r means, a n d ... a j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d w i t h o u t a c q u i r i n g s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a n u l l i t y . ' " ) , and the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t the a p p e l l a n t s r e l i e f on the foregoing, striking f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t them. we reverse the c i r c u i t the a p p e l l a n t s ' postjudgment 19 motion, court's Based order i n s t r u c t the 1080309 circuit c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , and remand t h e case f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s REVERSED AND opinion. REMANDED. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Smith, 20 and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r .

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.