Austin v. Austin, 159 So. 3d 753

Curtis and Cornelia Austin divorced in July 2004; custody split with mother primary physical custody; father ordered $400/month child support and half of noncovered medical expenses.
December 2011 mother, acting pro se, filed a petition to modify child-support; petition did not indicate nonpayment past due amounts.
April–May 2012 scheduling order for trial and notice to mother; father not served with scheduling order or original notice.
May 22, 2012 amended petition added contempt-like allegations and asserted past-due support and medical expenses, filed less than 42 days before trial; no leave of court obtained under Rule 15(a).
June 21, 2012 trial held with father in default for failure to appear; June 29, 2012 default judgment increased father’s child support to $1,115/month, awarded costs and attorney fee, and purged via payment; a jail attachment was issued.
July–October 2012 post-judgment motions were filed by father seeking relief under Rule 55(c); motion deemed denied by operation of law on October 15, 2012; father appealed on October 22, 2012; court granted application for rehearing and substituted its May 10, 2013 opinion with this one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended petition improperly added contempt to modification	Mother (Austin) contend amendment joins related claims properly under Rule 70A and Rule 18.	Father (Austin) argues amendment was improper under Rule 15(a) because filed <42 days before trial.	Amendment not proper under Rule 15(a); service defects tainted contempt claims.
Whether service of amended petition on defaulting father was proper	Mother relied on Rule 5(a) and 4 for service of new claims.	Father asserts lack of proper service violated due process.	No service under Rule 4; default judgment void for those contempt-related claims.
Whether joining modification and contempt is permissible	Mother asserts Rule 70A and Rule 18 allow joinder of claims arising from civil contempt and modification.	Father argues joinder is improper in a single pleading.	Joinder permissible under 70A and 18; error purely on timing/service issues.
Whether Rule 55(c) denial should be reversed for due process/Kirtland factors	Father contends court failed to consider due-process guarantees and Kirtland factors.	Mother argues denial was proper where no timely showings of merits.	Partial reversal for the contempt-modification portion; denial affirmed as to modification portion; need for remand to consider Kirtland factors acknowledged.

Waters v. Jolly, 582 So.2d 1048 (Ala.1991) (construction of Rule 8(f) notice standards in pleadings)
Ex parte Boykin, 656 So.2d 821 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (contempt proceedings governed by Rule 70A; filing requirements)
Image Marketing, Inc. v. Florence Television, L.L.C., 884 So.2d 822 (Ala.2003) (treatment of untimely amendments under Rule 15(a) and governing notice requirements)
Brantley v. Glover, 84 So.3d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (Kirtland factors and notice issues in default judgments; merits of defenses under Rule 55(c) analysis)
Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc., 524 So.2d 600 (Ala.1988) (three-factor test for setting aside default judgments)
Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 514 So.2d 1283 (Ala.1987) (origin of Kirtland factors guidance)
Satterfield v. Winston Industries, Inc., 553 So.2d 61 (Ala.1989) (due process/jurisdictional notice principles)