Brantley v. Glover
2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 212
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Brantley appealed a default judgment in favor of Glover in Limestone County, Alabama.
- Glover purchased a used manufactured home from Brantley; location and licensing involved Tennessee.
- The installment agreement required 16 monthly payments of $350 plus a final $250, with a 35 late fee and acceleration upon default.
- Glover sued for accounting and declaratory relief in April 2008; Brantley answered pro se in May 2008 claiming missing/delayed payments and seeking arrears.
- Glover amended to add ALAA claim in June 2010; a September 28, 2010 hearing occurred with Glover present; Brantley was not.
- Default judgment entered October 6, 2010 declaring full payment and awarding ALAA attorney fees; Brantley sought relief via Rule 59/Rule 55 motion, denied by operation of law; Brantley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TILA applies to this case. | Glover claimed no TILA ground; Brantley argued TILA applies. | Brantley contended TILA claims were the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. | TILA not applicable; no jurisdictional basis under TILA. |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Brantley’s motion to set aside the default judgment without properly applying Kirtland factors. | Brantley argued lack of proper Kirtland analysis. | Glover argued Kirtland factors sufficient; Brantley failed to address all factors. | Trial court did not err in denying relief by operation of law due to Brantley not raising all Kirtland factors. |
| Whether Brantley’s motion triggered the Kirtland analysis requirement. | Brantley alleged meritorious defense and culpable conduct. | Glover would be unfairly prejudiced if judgment set aside; Brantley did not allege this. | Brantley failed to allege unfair prejudice, so Kirtland analysis not triggered. |
| Whether Brantley’s subject-matter jurisdiction and claims under the ALAA were properly addressed. | Glover sought ALAA relief based on documentary evidence. | Brantley contested merits and asserted lack of jurisdiction under TILA. | ALAA claim addressed; TILA not applicable; no jurisdictional error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Serv., Inc., 524 So.2d 600 (Ala. 1988) (three-factor analysis for setting aside default judgments; burden on movant; policy favors merits)
- Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 514 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 1987) (three-factor framework for setting aside default judgments)
- Richardson v. Integrity Bible Church, Inc., 897 So.2d 345 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004) (requires demonstrating Kirtland factors to consider merits)
- Carroll v. Williams, 6 So.3d 463 (Ala.2008) (movant must argue all three Kirtland factors to trigger analysis; failure can bar relief)
- Sumlin v. Sumlin, 931 So.2d 40 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005) (suggests lack of prejudice discussion may not be fatal, but context matters)
- Fries Corr. Equip., Inc. v. Con-Tech, Inc., 559 So.2d 557 (Ala.1990) (illustrates application of Kirtland factors)
- B.E.H., Jr. v. State ex rel. M.E.C., 71 So.3d 689 (Ala.Civ.App. 2011) (cited for Kirtland factor discussion)
- Calhoun v. Bracknell, 993 So.2d 902 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008) (Kirtland factor analysis reference)
- Aldridge v. Hamilton, 708 So.2d 194 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997) (Kirtland framework context)