Wesley Health System, LLC v. Edward Lavonne Love
200 So. 3d 440
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Jackie Love died in Wesley Medical Center's care after surgery; her husband Edward Love sued Wesley for negligence, malpractice, and wrongful death.
- Process was allegedly served on Wesley’s registered agent CSC via process server Terry Keith on March 24, 2015; Keith swore an affidavit of service stating she served Lorri Babb at CSC (though Babb works at Watson & Jones, which accepts service for CSC).
- Wesley did not respond within 30 days; clerk entered default and the trial court held a damages hearing in May 2015, later entering a large default judgment against Wesley.
- Wesley moved to set aside the default judgment, asserting it had not been served and that CSC and Wesley first learned of the suit only in late May 2015; CSC and Babb submitted affidavits denying receipt of the March service.
- At the Rule 60 hearing the trial judge examined the process server but denied Wesley an opportunity to cross-examine her on the contested service issue, then found service was proper and declined to apply the three‑part Rogillio balancing test before denying relief.
- Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by prohibiting cross‑examination and by failing to apply the required three‑part test if it found service proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process on Wesley's registered agent was proper | Love relied on process server Keith’s affidavit and testimony that she served CSC (via Babb) | Wesley/CSC argued no record of receipt; Babb and CSC denied being served and Wesley first learned of suit in late May | Reversed: trial court erred by denying cross‑examination of the process server; record incomplete on service question |
| Whether the trial court applied correct standard to set aside default | Love argued the court properly treated setting aside as limited to ‘‘extraordinary’’ cases | Wesley argued the court must apply the three‑part balancing test (good cause, colorable defense, plaintiff prejudice) | Reversed: court abused discretion by failing to apply the three‑part Rogillio test if it finds service proper |
| Whether denial of cross‑examination was waived by Wesley | Love contended Wesley failed to contemporaneously object or proffer | Wesley argued the court made immediate factual finding and thus foreclosed its cross‑examination right | Held for Wesley: exclusion of cross examination was reversible error and deprived Wesley of a fundamental right |
| Whether damages award should stand | Love sought full damages; trial court initially awarded large damages then reduced them | Wesley challenged damages as excessive | Court’s reversal focused on service and procedure; damages review not reached on merits and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodruff v. Thames, 143 So. 3d 546 (Miss. 2014) (articulating Rule 60 default‑judgment standards referenced by the Court)
- McCain v. Dauzat, 791 So. 2d 839 (Miss. 2001) (default judgment void if service lacking; trial court must set aside)
- American States Ins. Co. v. Rogillio, 10 So. 3d 463 (Miss. 2009) (three‑part balancing test for setting aside default judgments)
- Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Danos, 46 So. 3d 298 (Miss. 2010) (trial court must employ Rogillio test; appellate review mirrors balancing)
- Culp v. State, 933 So. 2d 264 (Miss. 2005) (broad cross‑examination latitude under M.R.E. 611)
- Prewitt v. State, 126 So. 824 (Miss. 1930) (cross‑examination is essential to testing credibility and truthfulness)