Alabama Appellate Watch : Blog Published by Lightfoot Franklin & White : Alabama Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Appellate, Alabama Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Alabama)

In Carroll, the trial court entered a default judgment against Carroll in favor of Williams on a cross-claim.  Carroll filed a Rule 55 motion seeking to have the default judgment set aside, arguing only that he had a meritorious legal defense.  Carroll, however, provided no evidence other than a copy of a release from a related claim and argument.  The trial court failed to rule on the motion within 90 days, and it was denied by operation of law.

Carroll argued on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to apply the analysis required by Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc,, 524 So. 2d 600 (Ala. 1988).  Under Kirtland, a trial court has broad discretion whether to set aside a default judgment, and must consider (1) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, (2) whether the plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced if the default is set aside, and (3) whether the default was the result of the defendant's own culpable conduct.  Slip Op. p. 8.

The Court noted that the default party has the initial burden of demonstrating the Kirtland factors.  Here, the only Kirtland factor addressed by the defaulting party was the meritorious defense element.  Carroll did not argue that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced or that the default was not the result of its own culpable conduct.  Thus, the only relevant factor was whether Carroll had a meritorious defense.

With regard to the meritorious defense, the defaulting party must show that the "allegations in an answer or in a motion to set aside the default judgment and its supporting affidavits, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense to the action, or when sufficient evidence has been adduced either by way of affidavit or by some other means to warrant submission of the case to the jury." Slip. Op. p. 9, quoting Kirtland, 524 So. 2d at 606 (emphasis added by Court).  Further, the allegations "in the answer and in the motion must be more than mere bare legal conclusions without factual support." Slip. Op. p. 9, quoting Kirtland, 524 So. 2d at 606 (emphasis added by Court).

The Court found that the submission filed by Carroll failed to meet its initial burden under Kirtland.  Thus, because Carroll had not met its initial burden, the Court declined to hold the trial court in error for failing to engage in a Kirtland analysis.

The default judgment was entered in this divorce proceeding after the husband's counsel withdrew and the husband missed the final hearing.  However, the husband moved to set aside the default on the basis that he missed the hearing due to his hospitalization for observation due to suicidal impulses and threats.  The trial court denied the motion to set aside, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed.  The court noted that cases should be heard on the merits whenever practicable, and this is especially true domestic relations cases.

Also, it is worth noting that the motion to set aside was styled as a Rule 55(c) motion.  The motion was filed 31 days after the entry of default.  This is untimely, as Rule 55 motions must be filed within 30 days.  However, Rule 60(b)(1) allows relief in some instances more than 30 days after the entry.  It is not clear from the opinion when the motion was converted to a Rule 60 motion, or if the court did so sua sponte.  But, the court considered the motion even though it was a Rule 55 motion filed more than 30 days after the entry of default.