Cameron v. Tillis, 1040493.
Decision Date | 18 August 2006 |
Docket Number | 1040493. |
Citation | 952 So.2d 352 |
Parties | Cecil E. CAMERON v. Laythron TILLIS and Ethel Tillis. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Randall Morgan and David W. Henderson of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant.
Thomas B. Albritton of Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson, Moody & Bowden, P.C., Andalusia, for appellees.
Laythron Tillis and his wife, Ethel Tillis, allege that, on or about April 14, 2002, Cecil E. Cameron, while driving a rental car he had leased from Hertz Corporation, rear-ended the vehicle occupied by Laythron, injuring him. As a result, the Tillises sued Cameron in the Coffee Circuit Court; Laythron alleged negligence and wantonness, and Ethel alleged loss of consortium.
The Tillises twice attempted to serve Cameron with the summons and complaint via certified mail at Cameron's last-known address in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. Both attempts failed, and each return-receipt came back unclaimed. Subsequently, the Tillises filed a motion with the trial court for service by publication, which the trial court granted. The trial court ordered that notice of the complaint be published once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper published in Coffee County. Apparently, Hertz became aware of the litigation and, pursuant to its rental agreement with Cameron, retained an attorney to represent Cameron. Hertz denies having had any contact with Cameron since entering into the rental agreement, and the attorney Hertz retained to represent Cameron denies ever having any contact with Cameron. Both Hertz and the attorney it retained to represent Cameron deny knowledge of Cameron's current whereabouts.
The attorney Hertz retained to represent Cameron states that he discovered through "alacourt.com," an Internet database of court records, that service had been made by publication, and he thereafter made a limited appearance in the trial court for the purpose of challenging such service. The attorney filed a "motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for service by publication and motion to quash service." In effect, the motion falls under Rule 12(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., attacking the sufficiency of process by arguing that Cameron was not subject to service by publication under the terms of the version of Rule 4.3(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., in effect at the time service by publication was made and that, the attorney says, applies to this proceeding.
The Tillises opposed the motion and moved for an entry of default. At a hearing in the trial court, the attorney retained to represent Cameron refused to accept service of process on Cameron's behalf. After the hearing, the trial court entered a written order denying the attorney's motion to quash service and granting the Tillises' motion for the entry of a default judgment. Subsequently, the trial court entered a judgment by default against Cameron and assessed damages of $120,000 for Laythron and $20,000 for Ethel. Fourteen days later, the attorney retained to represent Cameron filed a motion requesting the trial court to set aside the default judgment under Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; to grant relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; or to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment under Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. The attorney for Cameron argued in his motion that a nonresident defendant cannot be served by publication; that, in any event, before service may be made by publication, there must be evidence indicating that the defendant has avoided service; that default judgments are disfavored in the law; that the default judgment unduly prejudiced Cameron; and that the damages awarded were unsupported and excessive. The trial court denied the motion, and Cameron appealed.
"The standard of review in the case of an order setting aside, or refusing to set aside, a default judgment proceeds on the basis that the trial judge has great discretion, and his judgment will not be disturbed unless he has clearly [exceeded] such discretion." Roberts v. Wettlin, 431 So.2d 524, 526 (Ala.1983). However, Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.1985).
The attorney for Cameron argues that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment or otherwise to grant Cameron relief from that judgment because, according to Cameron's attorney, the judgment was void in that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cameron. See, generally, Clark, 468 So.2d at 141 (). According to Cameron's attorney, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cameron because he had not been properly served with the summons and complaint. See, generally, Image Auto, Inc. v. Mike Kelley Enters., Inc., 823 So.2d 655, 657 (Ala.2001) ().
Cameron's attorney argues that Cameron was not properly served because the law provides that only Alabama residents may be served by publication. In Wise v. Siegel, 527 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Ala.1988), this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C.S. v. J.B.
...R. Civ. P., deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and renders a default judgment void. Cameron v. Tillis, 952 So. 2d 352 (Ala. 2006) ; Image Auto, Inc. v. Mike Kelley Enters., Inc., supra. In Bank of America, supra, our supreme court also stated:" ‘ " ‘One of ......
-
Boudreaux v. Kemp
...defendant ...." and that "defendant had thirty days thereafter to file a motion to set aside the default judgment"). In Cameron v. Tillis, 952 So.2d 352, 353 (Ala.2006), this Court set out the following standard of review applicable to an order refusing to set aside a default judgment:" 'Th......
-
Warhurst v. City of Tuscumbia (In re Lereta, LLC)
...stand." Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala. 1985).' " Boudreaux v. Kemp, 49 So.3d 1190, 1194 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Cameron v. Tillis, 952 So.2d 352, 353 (Ala. 2006) ); see also LVNV Funding, LLC v. Boyles, 70 So.3d 1221, 1226–27 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ("In reviewing the ruling of a trial......
-
Ali v. Williamson
...R. Civ. P., deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and renders a default judgment void. Cameron v. Tillis, 952 So. 2d 352 (Ala. 2006) ; Image Auto, Inc. v. Mike Kelley Enters., Inc., [823 So. 2d 655 (Ala. 2001)]. In Bank of America[Corp. v. Edwards, 881 So. 2d ......