Cornelius v. Browning
85 So. 3d 954
Ala.2011Background
- Plaintiffs sued Cornelius and others for investments in entities connected to Cornelius, asserting multiple claims including breach, negligence, unjust enrichment, and fiduciary duties.
- Trial court entered a default judgment against Cornelius for $975,000 after his deposition failure; no hearing on the default judgment appears in the record.
- Cornelius claimed he did not receive notice of the default-judgment motion; plaintiffs disputed service and notice adequacy.
- Plaintiffs sought partial relief and damages with an accounting of investments; they alleged Cornelius’s address and service history affected notice.
- Garnishment and post-judgment proceedings followed the October 28, 2009 default judgment, which the trial court denied relief from under Rule 60(b)(6); this Court held the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4) and remanded for proper proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment is void for due process violations. | Cornelius lacked notice and thus was denied an opportunity to be heard. | Cornelius did not receive proper notice of the default-judgment motion. | Yes; judgment void under due process (Rule 60(b)(4)). |
| Whether service/notice via mail to last known address suffices for due process. | Mail to P.O. Box 190 was sufficient as last known address. | Notice to that address was not reasonably calculated to inform Cornelius. | No; service failed to meet due-process requirements. |
| Whether the damages and procedural posture raise separate voidness concerns (jurisdiction/jury, etc.). | Damages and lack of jury assessment should be addressed. | These issues are ancillary if the judgment is void. | Pretermitted; the judgment voidness controls. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief should be granted given aggravating circumstances. | Rule 60(b)(6) merits relief due to due-process issues. | Rule 60(b)(4) governs; relief under 60(b)(6) not necessary when voidness established. | Not reached on merits; Rule 60(b)(4) voidness controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirtek USA, LLC v. Whitehead, 51 So.3d 291 (Ala.2010) (judgment void for lack of due process when notice deficient)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Ex parte Weeks, 611 So.2d 259 (Ala.1992) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Thomas v. Alabama Mun. Elec. Auth, 432 So.2d 470 (Ala.1983) (notice must provide reasonable assurance of actual notice)
- Piel v. Dillard, 414 So.2d 87 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (address-based service limitations in context of last known address)
- Progress Indus., Inc. v. Wilson, 52 So.3d 500 (Ala.2010) (appearance requires some submission indicating intent to submit to jurisdiction)
- Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Serv., 524 So.2d 600 (Ala.1988) (three-factor test for setting aside default judgments)
- Ethridge v. Wright, 688 So.2d 818 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (necessity to analyze Rule 60(b) grounds and Kirtland factors)