Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1978 |
| Citation | 364 So.2d 1173 |
| Parties | SEVENTH WONDER, an Unincorporated Assoc., William Jerome Thornton et al., etc. v. SOUTHBOUND RECORDS, INC. 77-602. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jock M. Smith, Tuskegee Institute, for appellant.
Carolyn D. Gaines of Chestnut, Sanders & Sanders, Selma, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment.
Suit was filed against the defendants on March 11, 1975. They timely filed an answer and cross-claim. Trial was set for October 11, 1976. They failed to appear; and the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. After taking testimony on damages, the court entered a judgment in plaintiff's favor for $50,000.
On September 14, 1977, the defendants filed a motion under ARCP 60(b)(4). The motion was denied. This appeal followed.
We affirm. By their ARCP 60(b)(4) motion, the defendants-appellants assert that the default judgment is void on its face because they had no notice under ARCP 5(a). That rule requires notice to parties not in default. These parties were in default, having failed to appear on the day the case was set for trial. No notice was required, therefore, under Rule 5(a).
They also contend that the judgment is void because they did not receive notice pursuant to ARCP 55 at least 3 days before hearing was held on the plaintiff's application for default. By the express terms of Rule 55, ". . . judgment by default may be entered by the court on the day the case is set for trial without such 3 days notice. . . ." The record affirmatively shows that default was entered by the court on the day the case was set for trial. The 3-day notice was, therefore, not required.
The appellants made only a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which authorizes relief from void judgments. There is no discretion on the part of the trial court on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. If the judgment is void, it is to be set aside; if it is valid, it stands. Therefore, the Only question before us is whether the Judgment is void. A judgment is void only if the court which rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2862; Restatement of Judgments, § 8.
In this case, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the parties. They were not denied due process. They were properly before the court and simply failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Gordy
...on the ground that it is "void." See C. Wright, A. Miller, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2862 (3d ed.); Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Ala. 1978) (citing Wright & Miller § 2862 in expounding the standard for considering a motion under ALA. R. CIV. P. 60(b)......
-
Davis v. Self
...Sippial Elec. Co., 379 So.2d 579, at 867 [581] (Ala.1980). If the judgment is void, it must be set aside. Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So.2d 1173, at 1174 (Ala.1978). 4. Respondent moves the Court to take judicial notice of Williams v. Williams, and the significant unequa......
-
Neal v. Neal
...is either void for want of personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, or due process of law, see Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Ala. 1978), Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.1985), Cassioppi v. Damico, 536 So.2d 938, 940 (Ala.1988), Pollard ......
-
Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, LLC
...of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Ala.1978) (emphasis III. Analysis Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and will be issued "only where there is (1) a clear lega......