Hilyer v. Fortier

• Decision Date: 20 February 2015
• Docket Number: 1131174.
• Citation: 176 So.3d 809
• Parties: Adam Dan HILYER v. Betti FORTIER, individually and as mother and next friend of M.M., a minor.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

176 So.3d 809

Adam Dan HILYER

v.Betti FORTIER, individually and as mother and next friend of M.M., a minor.

1131174.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 20, 2015.

John W. Dodsonand Robert A. Arnwine, Jr., of Dodson Gregory, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.

Julia A. Beasleyof Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee.

Opinion

WISE, Justice.

The defendant below, Adam Dan Hilyer, appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him and in favor of the plaintiff, Betti Fortier. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

On the evening of July 29, 2013, Hilyer was backing a tractor-trailer rig used to transport logs into his private driveway on Kennedy Avenue. At the time, Hilyer was blocking both lanes of traffic on Kennedy Avenue. M.M., a minor, was driving Fortier's van and was traveling westbound on Kennedy Avenue. B.D., M.M.'s brother; R.W., M.M.'s fiancé; and B.H., a friend of B.D.'s, were also in the vehicle with M.M. M.M.'s vehicle collided with Hilyer's trailer, and M.M. sustained injuries.

On October 30, 2013, Fortier, individually and as the mother and next friend of M.M., sued Hilyer, asserting claims of negligence and wantonness. In her complaint, Fortier alleged that, at the time of the accident, it was dark and that Hilyer's tractor-trailer was blocking both lanes of travel on Kennedy Avenue, which caused M.M.'s vehicle to collide with the trailer. Fortier alleged:

1. That Hilyer negligently and wantonly blocked both lanes of travel on Kennedy Avenue in the dark while attempting to back the tractor-trailer rig into his private driveway;

2. That Hilyer negligently and wantonly failed to give adequate warnings to motorists approaching on Kennedy Avenue that the tractor-trailer rig was blocking both lanes of travel on Kennedy Avenue;

3. That Hilyer negligently and wantonly failed to have adequate and/or proper lighting on the truck and/or the trailer.

4. That Hilyer negligently and wantonly violated certain provisions of the Alabama Rules of the Road.

A summons and a copy of the complaint were served on Hilyer by certified mail on November 6, 2013. On January 27, 2014, Fortier filed a motion for a default judgment against Hilyer and requested a hearing on damages.

On January 28, 2014, the trial court entered an order granting Fortier's motion for a default judgment and stating: “Damages to be proven by affidavit and proposed judgment in 15 days.” Subsequently, Fortier submitted a “proposed judgment,” in which she requested that the trial court enter a judgment against Hilyer in the amount of $550,000 and “to find that the proposed settlement of the claim of the minor, M.M. is just, fair, reasonable, in keeping with the evidence, and is in the minor's best interest.” In support of her request, Fortier attached an affidavit from her counsel regarding the injuries sustained by M.M. and the expenses that had been incurred as a result of those injuries.

On February 12, 2014, the trial court entered a judgment against Hilyer in the amount of $550,000 and found “that the proposed settlement of the claim of the minor, M.M. is just, fair, reasonable, in keeping with the evidence, and is in the minor's best interest.”

On March 7, 2014, Hilyer filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. In his motion, Hilyer addressed the requirements for setting aside a default judgment set forth in Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc.,524 So.2d 600 (Ala.1988). He also attached to his motion his affidavit; an affidavit from his neighbor, Wyman Earl Jackson, who witnessed the accident; an affidavit from Roberto Lozano, a claims manager for Alteris Insurance Services (“Alteris”), which was the third-party administrator for Hilyer's commercial-insurance policy; letters Fortier's counsel had sent to Lozano; an affidavit from Christopher Wyatt, an employee of Crawford & Company, which Alteris had hired to investigate the accident; copies of letters Wyatt had sent to Fortier's counsel; and a copy of a letter Fortier's counsel had sent to Wyatt after the default judgment had been entered. On that same date, Hilyer filed his answer to the complaint and affirmative defenses. The trial court subsequently entered an order setting a hearing on Hilyer's motion to set aside the default judgment.

On April 11, 2014, Fortier filed her opposition to Hilyer's motion to set aside. In support of her opposition, Fortier attached her affidavit; affidavits from M.M., B.D., and R.W.; an affidavit from Marc McHenry, an investigator with Fortier's counsel's law firm; copies of correspondence from Fortier's counsel; an affidavit from Fortier's counsel; and an affidavit from Shannon Rattan, the secretary for Fortier's counsel.

On April 16, 2014, the trial court entered an order stating that the hearing on the motion to set aside had been held and that the issue remained under advisement. The record does not include a transcript of the hearing.

On May 13, 2014, Hilyer filed a supplement to his motion to set aside the default judgment, in which he submitted an affidavit from Scott Kramer, a member of the Coosada Volunteer Fire Department (“the CVFD”), who was the on-scene supervisor for the accident. On May 21, 2014, Fortier filed a reply to Hilyer's supplement to his motion to set aside the default judgment and a motion to strike Kramer's affidavit. Hilyer's motion to set aside the default judgment was denied by operation of law on June 5, 2014. Hilyer appealed.

Standard of Review

“Typically, this Court reviews a trial court's decision granting or denying a motion to set aside a default judgment to determine whether the trial court, in so deciding, exceeded its discretion. Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc.,524 So.2d 600, 603 (Ala.1988). However, this Court has previously determined that the judgment that results from a trial court's failure to rule on a motion subject to denial by operation of law under Rule 59.1 is not automatically entitled to the same deference that is afforded a judgment arrived at after due deliberation. Edgar v. State,646 So.2d 683, 686–87 (Ala.1994); and Perdue v. Gates,403 So.2d 165 (Ala.1981).... [B]ecause the trial court took no valid action indicating that the decision to deny Jeffery's motion was the product of due deliberation, we review Jeffery's motion to set aside the default judgment de novo, applying the analysis mandated by Kirtland.

“ ‘Under Kirtland,the trial court must first presume that cases should be decided on the merits whenever it is practicable to do so. This presumption exists because the right to have a trial on the merits ordinarily outweighs the need for judicial economy. Second, the trial court must apply a three-factor analysis in determining whether to set aside a default judgment: it must consider “1) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; 2) whether the plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside; and 3) whether the default judgment was a result of the defendant's own culpable conduct.” Kirtland,524 So.2d at 605.’

“Sampson v. Cansler,726 So.2d 632, 633 (Ala.1998).”

Steele v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n,69 So.3d 89, 91 (Ala.2010).

Discussion

Hilyer argues that the trial court erred when it allowed his motion to set aside the default judgment to be denied by operation of law.

“Pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., ‘[t]he court may ... set aside a judgment by default on the motion of a party filed not later than thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment.’ ... In Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc.,524 So.2d 600 (Ala.1988), our supreme court established an analysis for trial judges to follow when exercising the discretionary authority conferred under Rule 55(c). As this court recently summarized in Brantley v. Glover,84 So.3d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.2011):

“ ‘ “A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to set aside a default judgment. Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc.,524 So.2d 600 (Ala.1988). In reviewing an appeal from a trial court's order refusing to set aside a default judgment, this Court must determine whether in refusing to set aside the default judgment the trial court exceeded its discretion. 524 So.2d at 604. That discretion, although broad, requires the trial court to balance two competing policy interests associated with default judgments: the need to promote judicial economy and a litigant's right to defend an action on the merits. 524 So.2d at 604. These interests must be balanced under the two-step process established in Kirtland.

“ ‘ “We begin the balancing process with the presumption that cases should be decided on the merits whenever it is practicable to do so. 524 So.2d at 604. The trial court must then apply a three-factor analysis first established in Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R.,514 So.2d 1283 (Ala.1987), in deciding whether to deny a motion to set aside a default judgment. Kirtland,524 So.2d at 605. The broad discretionary authority given to the trial court in making that decision should not be exercised without considering the following factors: ‘1) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; 2) whether the plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside; and 3) whether the default judgment was a result of the defendant's own culpable conduct.’ 524 So.2d at 605.”

“ ‘Zeller v. Bailey,950 So.2d 1149, 1152–53 (Ala.2006).

“ ‘As we stated in Richardson v. Integrity Bible Church, Inc.,897 So.2d 345 (Ala.Civ.App.2004):

“ ‘ “Because of the importance of the interest of preserving a party's right to a trial on the merits, this court has held that where a trial court does not demonstrate that it has considered the mandatory Kirtlandfactors in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment, such as where a Rule 55(c)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] motion is denied by operation of law, the denial of the motion to set aside the

...