Title: John Folds v. Hilton Cooper Contracting, Inc. (Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court: CV-09-900007). Affirmed. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1081774
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 18, 2011

This case was originally assigned to another Justice on
1
this Court; it was reassigned to Justice Stuart on February
15, 2011.
REL: 03/18/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
____________________
1081774
____________________
John Folds
v.
Hilton Cooper Contracting, Inc.
Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court
(CV-09-900007)
STUART, Justice.1
AFFIRMED.  NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
1081774
2
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and
Wise, JJ., concur. 
Murdock, J., dissents.
1081774
The amount awarded appears to include the gross amount
2
that was to have been paid for all work that was to have been
performed under a construction contract, together with
interest.  Folds allegedly defaulted after receiving Hilton
Cooper's initial invoice for a relatively small portion of the
work.
3
MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting).
Approximately 90 days following the service of a summons
and complaint in the underlying action, the trial court
granted a motion filed by the plaintiff, Hilton Cooper
Contracting, Inc., for a default judgment against the
defendant, John Folds.   Eleven days later, Folds filed a
2
motion under Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., seeking relief from
that judgment. 
Folds's motion addressed the three factors outlined in
Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc., 524 So.
2d 600 (Ala. 1988).  As to the first Kirtland factor, Folds
alleged a meritorious defense (that he personally was not a
party to the construction contract upon which Hilton Cooper's
claim was based); as to the third Kirtland factor, Folds  made
a sufficient showing that his failure to answer the complaint
was not a result of willful conduct or conduct committed in
bad faith. 
1081774
4
As to the second Kirtland factor, whether the plaintiff
will be prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside,
Folds's motion stated only that Hilton Cooper "will not be
substantially prejudiced if the default judgment is set
aside."  Hilton Cooper responded in the trial court, and has
responded in this Court, by asserting only that it will be
prejudiced by having to expend the effort and money to
litigate the case if the default judgment is set aside.  Under
the circumstances presented, I do not believe Folds's failure
to have made a more substantial showing as to why Hilton
Cooper will not be prejudiced should be considered fatal to
his appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion for
relief from that default judgment.  See Sumlin v. Sumlin, 931
So. 2d 40, 45-49 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).