IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2003-CA-01050-SCT

CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, INC.,

A DELAWARE CORPORATION

v.

C. J. RAWLS AND LULA RAWLS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/29/2003

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: BILLY BERRYHILL

W. WAYNE DRINKWATER, JR.

LAWRENCE ELDER HAHN

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: THOMAS M. MATTHEWS, III

WILLIAM L. DUCKER

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND

REMANDED IN PART -12/02/2004

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC.

CARLSON, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Capital One Services, Inc. appeals from the trial judge’s refusal to set aside a

$63,071.00 defa ult judgment entered against it in the Circuit Court of Lamar County. C. J.

Rawls and Lula Rawls (herein after “plaintiffs”), have filed a cross-appeal, asserting that the

circuit court lacked jurisdiction when it am e nded the default judgment from $693,071 to

$63,071. We affirm the trial court’s refusal to aside the default judgment as to liability, but

vacate the judgment and remand thi s case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing and the

entry of a new judgment consistent with the evidence received at that hearing.1 They eventually obtained a mortgage but, as a result of a poor credit rating, at a higher interest rate.

2 Service was effected on COS’s registered agent, Beverley L. Crump, an attorney in Virginia.

2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On April 14, 2001 , Capital One Services (hereinafter “COS”) received a signed

acceptanc e certificate for a pre-approved MasterCard purportedly from C.J. Rawls. The credit

card was sent to and received by the pla intiffs with a sticker advising them how to activate the

card. The plaintiffs never called to activate the card but an annual fee was charged to the

account. C.J. and his wife, Lula, learned of the charges in June 2001. They then requested that

COS canc el the account and charge off the balance. On September 18, 2001, COS sent the

plaintiffs a letter con

f irming that the balance had been cancelled, that the account had been

c losed, and that the credit reporting agencies had been directed to remove any dero gatory

information regarding the account.

¶3. In May of 2002, with the derogatory information still listed on their credit rep ort, the

plaintiffs hired counsel. The plaintiffs had by then built a house and their mortgage application

had been denied. 1 Counsel sent a letter to COS dema nding that all derogatory information be

removed from their credit report. On November 12, 2002, with COS having not complied with

the demand letter, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Lamar County.

¶4. The plaintiffs served COS both by mail and personal service. COS acknowledged receipt

of process on November 18, 2002. 2 On December 23, 2002, the circuit clerk’s default was

entered pursuan

t to Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The plaintiffs then applied for a judgment by default3 The Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure abolished writs as a method of obtaining relief, and relief

previously obtain able via writs is for the most part now obtainable through motions. In Dungan v. Dick

Moore, Inc.

, 463 So.2d 1094, 1097-98 (Miss. 1985), we held that damages previously assessed pursuant to

writs of inquiry, would now be assessed via a motion and subsequent hearing to assess damages.

4 Service was effected on counsel for COS on the same day.

3 and requested a writ of

inquiry to assess their damages. 3 The record does not reflect that a

hearing was ever conducted on the issue of damages. On January 10, 2003, the circuit court

entered a Fi

nal Judgment in the amount of $63,071 in actual damages and $630,000 in punitive

damages. On January 22, 2003, counsel for COS filed an entry of appearance.

¶5. On February 10, 2003, the pl aintiffs filed a Suggestion of Writ of Garnishment, and a

writ of garnishment was issued f or service shortly thereafter. In the writ, COS was listed as

the defendant and Capital One Bank (hereinafter “COB”) was listed as the garnishee defendant. 4

¶6. On February 13, 2003, COS filed a Motion to Set As ide Default Judgment in

accord ance with Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and 60(b). This was COS’s first response to the

unde rlying claim. In this motion, COS claimed to have a meritorious defense. COS argued that

the plaintiffs made several misrepresentatio ns and that it was not the proper party defendant.

Attached to the motion was an affidavit from the Executive Response Specialist (hereinafter

“specialist”) for COS. The specialist declared that the card was issued pursuant to a response

to an offer for a pre-approved MasterCard; that on August 16, 2001, the outstanding balance

was charged off; and, th at on September 18, 2001, COS sent the plaintiffs a letter confirming

that the account had been closed and that it had directed the credit reporting agencies to

remove any derogatory information that may have resulted.5 In a subsequent order entered April 30, 2003, the trial court emphasized that COS did not challenge

the damages nor demand regarding the plaintiffs’ claim for actual or punitive damages.

4 ¶7. On March 10, 2003, the trial court heard argumen ts regarding COS’s motion to set

aside the default judgment. At that time, COS declined to offer any witnesses or documentary

eviden ce and instead chose to stand on the sworn affidavit of the specialist. The trial court

informed COS that it was prepared to conduct a full hearing a nd consider any testimony in

support of i

ts motion, especially regarding any existing good cause for not answering the

complaint, potential meritorious defenses, or any proof that the plaintiffs would not be

prejudiced if the default judgment were set aside. 5 On March 11, 2003, the trial court denied

COS’s motion.

¶8. On March 14, 2003, COB removed the case to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississ ippi. On March 20, 2003, new counsel for COS filed an entry of

appearance in the circuit court. Pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 59(e), new counsel also filed a

Motion to A lter and Amend the Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Reconsider the Motion to

Set Asid e the Default Judgment. On April 29, 2003, all parties entered into an agreed

stipulation dismissing the federal court proceedings, without prejudice.

¶9. On April 30, 2003, the circuit court granted in part and denied in part COS’s motion to

alter or reconsider. The trial court set aside the award of punitive damages based on the United

States Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm M u tual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

, 538

U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003); however, the trial co urt left undisturbed

the judgment for actual damages.6 Miss. R. Civ. P. 60, provides in part:

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fra ud, etc. On motion and upon

such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(2) accident or mistake;

(3) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

5 ¶10. Before this Court are the appeal and cross-a ppeal from the trial court’s March 11,

2003, and April 30, 2003, orders. COS raises issues regardin g the default judgment, especially

damages awarded, and the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment.

¶11. The plaintiffs’ cross-appeal raises the issue concerning the April 30, 2003 Amended

Opinion in which the trial court set aside the punitive damage award. Further, the plaintiffs

argue that the trial cou

rt and this Court lack jurisdiction to review the punitive damage award.

ANALYSIS

¶12. At the outset, the Court notes that save th e failure to hold a hearing regarding damages,

the entry of the clerk’s default and the default judg ment was in accordance with the procedural

dictates of Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(a) and (b), respectively. COS was likewise properly served with

process. COS filed a motion to set aside the judgment in accordance with M i ss. R. Civ. P.

60(b). There are no issues raised regarding the clerk’s entr y of default pursuant to Miss. R. Civ.

P. 55(a).

I. Refusal to Set Aside Default Judgment.

¶13. There is a three-prong balancing test for trial courts to consider in determining whether

to set aside a default judgement pursuant to Miss. R. Ci v. P. 60(b). 6 Stanford v. Parker

, 822(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon

which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable

that the judgment should have prospective application;

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.

The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3)

not more than six months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A

motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its

operat ion. Leave to make the motion need not be obtained from the appellate court unless

the record has been transmitted to the appellate court and the action remains pending therein.

This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a

party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the

court....

6 So.2d 886, 887-88 (Miss. 2002) (citing McCai n v. Dauzat , 791 So.2d 839, 842 (Miss.

2001)). The court must consider: (1) the nature and legitimacy of the defendant's reasons for

default; (2) whether the defendant has a colorable defense to the merits of the claim; and (3)

the nature and extent of prejudice which m ay be suffered by the plaintiff if the judgment is set

aside. Id. at 843.

¶14. Where there is reasonable doubt as to whether the default judgme nt should be set aside,

the doubt falls in favor of allowing the case to go forward for a de c ision on the merits. McCain

v. Dauzat

, 791 So.2d at 843. “Where the defendant has shown that he h as a meritorious

defense,” we have encouraged trial courts to vacate default judgments. Allstate I ns. Co. v.

Green

, 794 So.2d 170, 174 (Miss. 2001) (quot ing Bailey v. Ga. Cotton Goods Co. , 543 So.2d

180, 182 (Miss. 1989)). S ee also Stanford v. Parker , 822 So.2d at 887-88 (¶ 6).

Nevertheless, the decision to set aside a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion

of the trial court. Williams v. Kilgore

, 618 So.2d 51, 55 (Miss. 1992) (citing Pointer v.7

Huffman

, 509 So.2d 870, 875 (Miss. 1987)). This discretion must be exercised in accordance

with the rules set forth in Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and 60(b). Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Pittman

,

501 So.2d 377, 388 (Miss. 1987).

¶15. In its motion to set aside the default judgment, COS asserted that it had a c olorable

defense; that the complaint misidentified the cardholder; and that it was not a p roper party. In

support of the motion was the affidavit from the specialist discussed infra. Attached to the

affidavit were se veral documents including the September 18, 2001 letter and an account

summary that indicated that the sum of $71 had been credited to the account.

¶16. On March 10, 2003, COS’s motion to set a side the default judgment was heard by the

trial court. At that time, COS declined to present any testimony or additional proof in favor of

its argument. Instead, COS chose to stand alone on the affidavit. Finding the defenses

submitted by COS insufficient, the trial court denied the motion. The circuit court ruled that

both the motion and the supporting affidavit fai led to establish a meritorious and colorable

defense. The trial court further held that all of these alleged deficiencies in the complaint

could have been corrected had COS answered the suit.

¶17. Considering the three-prong balancing test, the trial court determined that the first

prong favored the plaintiffs. The circuit court focused on the fact that COS waited thirteen days

af t er the court entered the default judgment before making an appearance. The trial court

em phasized that at that time, COS failed to attack the default judgment. Instead, COS simply

filed an entry of appearance and waited until a later date to file a motion to set aside the default8

judgment. The trial court noted that COS never responded to the proceedings until the

plaintiffs sought to have the judgment enforced via the writ of garnishment.

¶18. We agree that this prong favors the plaintiff s. COS presented little explanation

regarding its failure to appear. Likewise, it provided no explanation as to why there was a

twenty-one day delay between the filing of the entry of appearance and the filing of the motion

to set aside the default jud gment. This delay is indicative of the lack of diligence by COS in

this case.

¶19. Th

e trial court likewise found the second prong to favor the plaintiffs. The most

important prong is the determination of whether the defendant has a colorable defense to the

merits of the cl

aim. Bailey , 543 So.2d at 182; Am. Cable Corp. v. Trilogy Comm’n, Inc.

, 754

So.2d 545, 554 (¶ 32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) “Here the law demands more than a mere wish

and a prayer.” Rush v. Nort h Am. Van Lines, Inc. , 608 So.2d 1205, 1210 (Miss. 1992). In

order “[t]o show a creditable defense in the present setting, a party must show facts, not

conclusions, and must do so by affidavit or other sworn form of evidence.” Id. at 1210.

¶20. The only

support for the motion to set aside the default judgment is contained in the

affidavit by the specialist and documents attached thereto. Because of this, the trial court

could consider only the affidavit in determining whet her COS had a colorable defense. COS

alleged as a defense

that it was not a proper party. However, the affidavit did not address this

defense and all that supports this allegation is the lone, conclusory statement contained in the

motion itself. Like the trial court, we note that the affidavit confirms that COS received the

acceptance certificate for the credit card on April 14 , 2001, and that it sent the September 18,7 This motion was later supplemented based on the U.S. Su preme Court’s recent decision in S tate

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell , 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003).

9 2001 letter. It does support the defense that the account was closed and that the balance was

charged off. Further, it confirms that COS committed to contacting the credit reporting

agencies to remove any derogat ory information regarding the account; however, what the

affidavit fails to do is declare or provide proof that this was ever done. The failure to have

removed potential derogatory information is the primary allegation serving as the b asis for the

complaint and COS failed to respond to this. Accordingly, we are constrained to find that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside th e default judgment based on

this second prong.

¶21. As to the third prong, the trial court found that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced if the

judgment w ere set aside. Prejudice is found upon a delay in the proceedings in terms of loss

of memory of witnesses and the f act that the plaintiff is without a resolution for a long period

of time. G uar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Pittman

, 501 So.2d at 388. In reaching this conclusion, the

trial court reiterated that the plaintiffs spent almost a year attempting to correct the matter and

that COS did not respond to the lawsuit until after the filing of the suggestion for w rit of

garnishment and issuance of the writ of garnishment.

¶22. On March 20, 2003, COS, repres ented by new counsel, filed a motion to alter or

reco nsider the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment. This second motion was

considerably more thorough and unlike the earlier one, it provided more than conclusory

statements. 7 This motion raised several new arguments for setting aside the judgment of10

default and more developed reaso ning in favor of the arguments presented in the original

motion. Despite this, the trial court only reconsidered the punitive damage award. As to the

law and COS’s a rgument for setting aside the judgment, the trial court declined to alter or

amend its earlier ruling based on the fact that there had been no i ntervening change in

controll ing law, no new evidence, and no need to correct an error contained in the earlier

ruling.

¶23. On

appeal, COS argues that our rules of civil procedure provide that affidavits alone are

sufficient to supp ort a motion to set aside a judgment and thus it was not required to present

proof at the March 10, 2003 evidentiary hearing. The Court agre es that Miss. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

does not require

an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment.

COS assumes the motion to set aside the judg ment, in conjunction with the affidavit, addressed

the relevant issues. However, as discussed infra

, such is not the case. An affidavit is not a

mere formality that guarantees a motion to set aside a judgment will be granted. Still

necessary is that the affidavit addresses the sub stantive legal requirements for having a default

judgment set aside. We thus find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when

considering this third prong.

¶24. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the tri al court was eminently correct in refusing

to set aside the default judgment entered as to liability.

II. Failure to Hold an Evidentiary Hearing on the Issue of Damages.

¶25. COS argues that this Court has held that a t rial court must conduct an on-the-record

hearing regarding

damages before entering a default judgment. Because no hearing regarding8 However, one could hardly dispute the fact that a suit on an open account with a sworn itemized

account and documentation would ordinarily be more than sufficient to enable the judge to ascertain the exact

amount of the judgment.

11 damages was conducted, COS contends that the default judgment must be vacated. The

plaintiffs make several arguments, none of which are compelling. Primarily, they contend that

the damages awarded were in the nature of liquidated damages and that COS waived its right to

a hearing.

¶26. An on-the-record hearing must be held pr ior to the entry of default judgment under

which unliquidated damages are requested

. See Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(b). J ourney v. Long

, 585

So.2d 1268, 1272 (Miss. 1991) (default judgment reversed based on the fact that no record

was made of hearing); Am. 3-CI v. Farrow , 749 So.2d 298 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). That said,

the plaintiffs argue that they sought and received liquidated damages. However, in their

request for assessme nt of damages, the plaintiffs specifically stated that they were seeking

unliquidated damages.

¶27. Recently this Court discussed the g eneral distinction between liquidated and

unliquidated damages. M

oeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.

, 812 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2002).

The Court noted that liquidated damages are set or determined by contract, 8 while unliquidated

damages are established by a verdict or award and cann ot be determined by a fixed formula.

Id

. at 959-60. In the instant case, the damages awarded were not predetermined or

contractually established. Thus, we can quickly conclude that the plaintiffs sought and received

an award for unliquidated damages. Save the $71.00 balance, the plaintiffs submitted no proof12

regarding how they d etermined that they had suffered $63,071 in damages. The plaintiffs argue

that the matter is a simple mathematical calculation; ho wever, they fail to illustrate such. In

any ev ent, because the plaintiffs sought unliquidated damages, the trial court was required to

conduct an evidentiary hearing on the record.

¶28. As for waiver, this Court di sagrees with the plaintiffs. Under this Court’s precedent

addressing Miss. R. Civ. P. 55(b ), a judgment for unliquidated damages cannot be entered until

an on-the-record hearing of such has occurred. In the instant case, the only hearing that

occurred was the hearing conducte d after the entry of the judgment and that hearing did not

address the issue of damages. Instead, this hearing addressed COS’s motion to set aside the

default ju dgment. The plaintiffs argue that because COS declined to present any witnesses or

evidence, it waived any error. Many of the orders from the trial court and motions by the

plaintiffs indicate that a hearing was held in January 2003 regarding damages. But it is not until

the trial court’s April

30, 2003 order that it is clear that no such hearing actually occurred.

Thus, COS cannot be faulted for assuming that a hearing had already occurred.

¶29. As for the M arch 10, 2003 hearing, the notice filed in the record indicated that the

hearing was to a ddress the motion to set aside the default judgment and does not mention

damages. Assuming, arguendo, that COS’s decision not to present proof at this hearing is

r elevant, it does not obviate the requirement to hold a hearing. The hearing requirement

obligates the plaintiff to present proof and for the tr ial court to establish damages. It is an

opportunity for plaintiffs to substantiate their damage request and for the courts to ensure that13

the awards are not unreasonabl e or without merit. Accordingly, the trial court was still

required to consider any evidence which the plaintiffs submitted regarding damages.

¶30. Ultimately, this Court finds t hat it was an error not to conduct a hearing on damages.

“If the court determines that defendant is in default, the factual allegations of the complaint,

except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” J ourney

, 585 So.2d at

1272. Because a default judgment is not an admission as to damages, trial courts are obligated

to hold a hearing on damages. A llstate Ins. Co. v. Green

, 794 So.2d at 176 (citin g Journey

,

585 So.2d at 1272).

¶31. In the end , for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion

to set aside t

he judgment as to liability, but vacate the judgment and remand the case for an

evidentiary hearing to assess damages.

CROSS-APPEAL

III. Jurisdiction.

¶32. The plaintiffs argue that the trial court did not ha ve jurisdiction to consider COS’s

Motion to Alter or Reconsider. The plaintiff s contend that after the trial court denied the

motion to set aside the default judgment, CO S’s only option was to file a notice of appeal. The

plaint iffs maintain that when COS eventually filed a notice of appeal (following the denial of

the motion to alter or reconsider) the deadlin e for doing so had expired. Thus, they conclude

that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider COS’s appeal. We find this argument without

merit.14

¶33. Miss. R. Civ. P. 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment no

later than ten days after entry of judgment. In the instant case, judgment was entered on March

11, 2001, and the motion was filed on March 20, 2001. Because the deadline was met, the

plaintiffs’ argument attacking the trial court’s jurisdiction is without merit. As to this Court’s

jurisdiction, the time for taking an appeal in a civil case is tolled by M.R. A.P. 4(d) until the

disposition of all timely specif ied post-trial motions. Because COS filed its notice of appeal

within thirty days of the denial of the motion to al ter or reconsider, this issue is without merit.

IV. Was It Error to Set Aside the Punitive Damage Award.

¶34. Because we vacate and remand based on the trial court’s failure to conduct anon-therecord hearing regarding damages, we need not address this issue.

CONCLUSION

¶35. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s refusal to set aside the default

judgment as to liability, but we vacate the judgment and remand this case for an evi dentiary

hearing on damages and the entry of a ne w judgment consistent with the evidence received at

that hearing.

¶36. AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND

RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.15