Ethridge v. Wright
| Decision Date | 22 November 1996 |
| Citation | 688 So.2d 818 |
| Parties | Dayartra C. ETHRIDGE v. Brenda Murrell WRIGHT, Individually, and as Parent and Next Friend of Meosha Wright and Cleosha Wright, Minors. 2950412. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Barbara F. Olschner and Ann L. Witherspoon of Olschner & Hart, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Robert J. Hayes and Stephanie W. Cliett of Roden, Hayes & Carter, Birmingham, for appellee.
On June 17, 1993, Brenda Murrell Wright ("Wright"), individually, and as parent and next friend of Meosha Wright and Cleosha Wright, minors, filed a complaint against Dayartra C. Ethridge ("Ethridge"), Veronica L. Jackson ("Jackson"), and Brendalyn Bradford ("Bradford"). Wright's children were passengers in Ethridge's vehicle when a vehicle operated by Jackson and owned by Bradford collided with Ethridge's vehicle. The complaint alleged that the defendants negligently and/or wantonly operated their vehicles, resulting in injury to the minors and causing them to suffer great physical pain and anguish. The complaint also alleged that the minors incurred medical expenses as a result of the collision and that they will continue to suffer in the future as a result of the injuries they sustained in the collision.
On August 27, 1993, Wright applied for a default judgment against Bradford. The trial court entered the requested judgment of default. Wright then filed both an alias summons with a copy of the complaint against Ethridge and a motion for appointment of a process server. The "Order for Service and Return" was filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court and contained the signature of the process server, certifying that he had personally delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Ethridge.
On November 19, 1993, Wright applied for a default judgment against Ethridge. The trial court entered an order setting the motion for a hearing and also dismissed Jackson for lack of service. Following a hearing on the motion for default judgment, the trial court entered a judgment on July 7, 1995. In its judgment, the trial court found against Ethridge and Bradford and in favor of Wright in the amount of $4,000. The trial court also entered a default judgment that same day against Ethridge and Bradford in favor of each minor in a total amount of $1,000.
On September 19, 1995, Ethridge filed an Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment of default. 1 In her motion, Ethridge alleged that she had not been properly served and that she had a meritorious defense to the action. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on November 7, 1995. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that Ethridge had been properly served with the summons and complaint, and, therefore, it denied the motion to set aside the default judgment. Ethridge appeals the denial of that motion. We affirm.
We review the trial court's denial of Ethridge's Rule 60(b) motion under the abuse of discretion standard. Erickson v. EFS, Inc., 668 So.2d 854, 856 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). Because Ethridge requested that a default judgment be set aside, the trial court was required to consider both whether Ethridge had established Rule 60(b) grounds to set aside the judgment and whether she had met the standards for setting aside default judgments so clearly explained by our supreme court in Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc., 524 So.2d 600, 605-08 (Ala.1988). See DaLee v. Crosby Lumber Co., 561 So.2d 1086, 1091 (Ala.1990). According to the supreme court, Ethridge was required not only to establish a meritorious defense as described in Kirtland, but also to "demonstrate the ground under Rule 60(b) justifying relief from the final judgment." DaLee, 561 So.2d at 1091. Therefore, if Ethridge failed to establish the grounds for relief raised in her Rule 60(b) motion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion, regardless of whether she was able to satisfy the Kirtland standards.
Although Ethridge did not specify in her motion exactly which of the Rule 60(b) grounds she relied upon, we find it apparent that Ethridge was proceeding under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing that the judgment was void for lack of service. The trial court held a hearing on the issue of whether Ethridge had been properly served, and it decided that she had been. After a review of the evidence contained in the record, we agree.
An individual must be served by "serving the individual or by leaving a copy of the summons and the complaint at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." Rule 4(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. Under Alabama law, strict compliance with the rules governing service of process is required. Aaron v. Aaron, 571 So.2d 1150 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.C. v. State Department of Human Resources
...denied the reports. "`The trial court, as the finder of fact, is required to resolve conflicts in the evidence.' Ethridge v. Wright, 688 So.2d 818, 820 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)." D.M. v. Walker County Dep't of Human Res., 919 So.2d 1197, 1214 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005). Because the juvenile court had th......
-
D.M. v. Walker County Dhr
...793, 795 (Ala.1998)). "The trial court, as the finder of fact, is required to resolve conflicts in the evidence." Ethridge v. Wright, 688 So.2d 818, 820 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). "`[The appellate court is not] allowed to reweigh the evidence in this case. This case ... turns on the trial court's ......
-
R.J. v. Henry Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...(Ala. Civ. App. 2004); J.A.H. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 865 So.2d 1228, 1232 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003); and Ethridge v. Wright, 688 So.2d 818, 820 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). Moore, Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur. ...
-
M.H. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...and demeanor." ‘ "The trial court, as the finder of fact, is required to resolve conflicts in the evidence." Ethridge v. Wright, 688 So. 2d 818, 820 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).’ D.M. v. Walker County Dep't of Human Res., 919 So. 2d 1197, 1214 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). Because the juvenile court had......