Title: March v. Stringer
Citation: 518 So. 2d 65
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 2, 1987

518 So. 2d 65 (1987)
George Markham MARCH III
v.
Ivie Clayton STRINGER.
85-1240.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 2, 1987.
Rehearing Denied December 4, 1987.
*66 John D. Richardson and Weyman W. McCranie, Jr., of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Mobile, for appellant.
Joseph C. McCorquodale III of McCorquodale &amp; McCorquodale, Jackson, for appellee.
ALMON, Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendant, George Markham March III, from the denial of his Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., motion for relief from a default judgment.
On February 2, 1983, an accident involving the parties to this action occurred in the Bel Air Mall at Mobile. According to the plaintiff, Ivie Clayton Stringer, he was struck and severely injured by an automobile being driven by March. According to March, Stringer walked into the side of his automobile.
Thereafter, Stringer employed Joseph C. McCorquodale III, of Jackson, Alabama, to proceed with a claim on his behalf in connection with the accident. Meanwhile, March telephoned his insurance agent within a couple of hours after the accident and reported it.
Stringer's attorney obtained March's address from the accident report and, on February 21, 1983, wrote to him at 1201-B Primeter [sic] Drive, Mobile, Alabama:
March took this letter to his insurance agent or adjuster (March used both terms at the hearing). Ms. Lequita Robinson, a claims representative for the insurance company, acknowledged to Stringer's attorney on February 28, 1983, that the insurer had received this letter.
Later, the insurer referred the file to Ray McGraw, an independent adjuster, who, on July 25, 1983, wrote to Stringer's attorney that he was handling the file, and concluded:
On September 6, 1983, Stringer's attorney wrote to McGraw as follows:
Stringer's attorney wrote again on September 28, 1983:
*67 "Re: Our Client: Ivie Clayton Stringer Your Insured: Yalana March Date of Loss: February 2, 1983
The attorney wrote another letter on October 7, 1983:
On December 15, 1983, he sent another letter:
Stringer's attorney testified that during this correspondence he had no telephone conversations with McGraw. According to McGraw, however, he had telephone conversations with Stringer's attorney, during which he discussed the claim and his company's position, at least until December 27, 1983.
On January 24, 1984, Stringer filed an action for damages in Clarke County against March. The complaint contained two counts, one based on negligence and one on wanton conduct. The summons filed therewith stated that the defendant "may be served at: 1201-B Primiter Drive, Mobile, Alabama 36605." This summons was returned "Not Found," as acknowledged by a deputy sheriff's signature. Then service of process was attempted by certified mail on March 26, 1984, at the same address. This certified mail process was returned on April 20, 1984, "Unclaimed."
On June 19, 1984, Stringer's attorney moved by affidavit in the trial court for service by publication. The pertinent part of that affidavit follows:
On that day, the circuit clerk of Clarke County issued an order that publication be made once a week for four consecutive weeks in The South Alabamian, a newspaper published in Clarke County, and in The Mobile Press Register, a newspaper published in Mobile County, "requiring the said George Markham March, III, to plead or answer to the complaint in this cause by the 19th day of August, 1984, or in default thereof, thirty days thereafter a default judgment may be taken against said defendant." Subsequently, a legal notice, ordered by the circuit clerk of Clarke County, was published on June 28, July 5, July 12, *68 and July 19 in both of the newspapers referred to above.
Apparently there arose thereafter some question concerning the sufficiency of the previous affidavit for service by publication, for on December 5, 1984, Stringer filed a motion for service by publication, from which we quote in pertinent part:
The attached affidavit stated, in pertinent part:
We note that the motion and the affidavits do not specify any of the efforts made by Stringer's attorney to locate March.
On December 5, 1984, the Clarke Circuit Court entered the following order:
Publication of this order ensued as directed. Service by certified mail was also attempted on December 6, 1984, at 1201-B Primiter Drive, Mobile, but was returned "not claimed" on January 2, 1985.
On March 18, 1985, Stringer's motion to withdraw his jury demand was granted by the Clarke Circuit Court. On that same date, the circuit court ordered the circuit clerk to enter a default against March. The clerk did so on the same day. Following a hearing at which testimony and other evidence on Stringer's injuries were taken, the court awarded damages to Stringer in the amount of $71,797.68.
On August 26, 1985, March moved for relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., stating:
The affidavit of Ray McGraw contained the following pertinent statement:
March's affidavit also averred exculpatory facts:
March subsequently amended his motion for relief, asserting that the venue was improper under Rule 82, A.R.Civ.P., and that the judgment was void.
Both parties submitted briefs in connection with the motion for relief.
On October 3, 1985, the circuit court heard evidence on the motion and, after consideration, denied the motion for relief on June 25, 1986. This appeal followed.
Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., sets out the grounds upon which a party may seek relief from a "final judgment, order, or proceeding." By virtue of his averments in *70 his motion and its amendment, March relies upon ground (4) ("the judgment is void") and ground (6) ("any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment").
March maintains that the judgment against him is void because he was never properly served with process because Stringer's attorney failed to exercise the "reasonable diligence" required under Rule 4.3(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P., to ascertain the residence of March. That rule states:
According to March, reasonable diligence was lacking because Stringer's attorney made no attempt to obtain his address after service sent to the address found on the accident report was returned "not found" or "unclaimed." March emphasizes that Stringer's attorney never attempted to telephone his father, whose telephone number was listed in the telephone directory, or to telephone March himself. March introduced copies of pages from two years' Mobile telephone directories showing listings for "G.M. March" and "Dr. George M. March." Apparently one of these listings was for the father of defendant March; reasonable diligence would suggest that they be tried before service by publication be employed. Stringer's attorney testified that he did not look in the Mobile telephone directory after service was returned "Not found." According to March, he moved to Dauphin Island in May 1983 and obtained a telephone with a number listed for his Dauphin Island address.
March also points out that Stringer's attorney had knowledge that McGraw, the adjuster, was acting on behalf of March, and yet Stringer's attorney failed to notify the adjuster of any unsuccessful attempts to obtain service and failed to notify McGraw that a suit had been filed. According to March, he notified his insurance agent of his new address and it could have been obtained through the agent. There was some indication that McGraw did not have March's new address. However, when Stringer's attorney notified McGraw of the default judgment (immediately after the four-month period for motions under 60(b)(1) through (3) had expired, we note), March was promptly notified and the instant motion for relief was soon filed.
Stringer makes the point that McGraw did not respond (at least in writing) to his attorney's attempts to negotiate the claim. McGraw was under no obligation to respond to these letters, however, so, even accepting the attorney's version of the facts, i.e., that he and McGraw did not communicate by telephone, such a failure to communicate was no basis upon which the attorney could refrain from making the effort of locating March through McGraw. The attorney testified that he did in fact make no such effort because of McGraw's failure to correspond:
He did not owe such an effort to McGraw, but he did owe it to March in order to obtain jurisdiction over him in Stringer's lawsuit. The letter that had been sent to March at the Primiter Drive address had resulted in McGraw's acting on behalf of March in the matter. When the address later proved ineffective for service upon March, diligent effort required that Stringer's *71 attorney inquire of McGraw as to March's whereabouts before attempting service by publication.
In Marshall v. Mid-State Homes, Inc., 468 So. 2d 131 (Ala.1985), this Court held that the setting aside of a default judgment was proper where there had been service by publication, setting forth efforts the plaintiff should have taken when service by certified mail was returned unclaimed, efforts which were perhaps more burdensome than those which could have been pursued in this case. Also, in Whitfield v. Sanders, 366 So. 2d 258 (Ala.1978), this Court held that a default judgment based on service by publication was void since the defendant easily could have been served by certified mail. The Court of Civil Appeals reached a similar result in Sams v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 402 So. 2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Hutchins v. Shepard, 370 So. 2d 275 (Ala.1979), and Brooks v. Brooks, 494 So. 2d 645 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), are distinguishable on their facts, in that in those cases it affirmatively appeared that diligent efforts to locate the defendant were fruitless or would have been futile. See also Illinois Central Gulf R.R. v. Horton, 514 So. 2d 1283 (Ala.1987).
This Court stated in Smith v. Clark, 468 So. 2d 138, 141 (Ala.1985):
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court erred in denying March's 60(b)(4) motion for relief from the default judgment.
We note also that Rule 82, A.R. Civ.P., requires that personal actions against permanent residents of the state be brought "either in the county where the act or omission ... occurred, or in the county of the permanent residence of the defendant." The accident occurred in Mobile County and March lived in Mobile County, but Stringer filed suit in Clarke County.
Although it is not necessary that the defendant show a meritorious defense to succeed on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, see Ex parte Wilson Lumber Co., 410 So. 2d 407 (Ala.1982), we note that March testified that he was driving at 5 m.p.h. when Stringer stepped into the side of his car, under circumstances in which he (March) could not avoid the accident. This testimony was corroborated by a witness, Carl Patrick Olsen:
These matters indicating that the action was filed in the wrong county and that March presented a meritorious defense are not necessary to our holding that the trial court erred in denying the 60(b)(4) motion; we set them forth simply to indicate that March's 60(b) motion was amply supported.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
BEATTY, J., dissents.
BEATTY, Justice (dissenting).
An examination of the two affidavits executed by plaintiff's attorney, quoted in the majority opinion, fulfill the requirements of Rule 4.3(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P. The evidence shows that the February 21, 1983, letter of plaintiff's attorney was received by defendant. He did not reply to this letter, and he subsequently moved from his 1201-B Primiter Drive address in Mobile without either telling his neighbors or leaving a forwarding address with the post office. He did not have a telephone number listed in the Mobile directory. The defendant himself, however, testified that his telephone number had never been unlisted. According to McGraw, the insurance adjuster, the defendant did not give the adjuster a forwarding address, and, in fact, the adjuster never had any notice of a change in defendant's address. The adjuster himself had difficulty locating March, as shown by his file, part of which we quote:
"I found that the insured no longer resides at 1201-B Perimeter [throughout the record the street is usually referred to as "Primeter"] Drive, Mobile, AL. This is a housing project. I checked with neighbor, Annie Porter at 1200-B and she indicated they had moved over a year ago. She did not know of any way of contacting them.
There is no evidence that would indicate any more success by the plaintiff's attorney had he made these or similar attempts to locate the defendant.
*73 The facts establish that service by certified mail was attempted on two occasions at the same address, an address at which they knew the defendant had received mail because of his adjuster's earlier reply to plaintiff's lawyer. On each of those occasions the certified mail was sent twice, and returned "not claimed." The record discloses that defendant was residing in Mobile County when the publication notice appeared in the Mobile Register. Service was also attempted by the Mobile County sheriff's office at the same address used in the certified mail and returned "not found." No reason was established, moreover, why or how plaintiff's attorney could, or should, have known the name of defendant's father so as to telephone him as to his son's whereabouts.
The record also discloses that plaintiff's lawyer wrote four letters to defendant's adjuster during September, October, and December 1983the December letter containing copies of the previous three letters. No written replies were received. In that connection, plaintiff's lawyer denied having any telephone conversations with defendant's adjuster concerning the subject matter of those letters. Contrary to that position, defendant's adjuster testified that he and plaintiff's lawyer discussed these by telephone:
This exchange raised conflicting inferences. If, as defendant argues, it was incumbent upon plaintiff's counsel to notify defendant's adjuster of the filing of the lawsuit, it was equally incumbent upon the adjuster, in view of the correspondence between them, to make a similar inquiry, since that correspondence specifically referred to the threat of a lawsuit. The absence of any inquiry from the adjuster would tend to support the claim of reasonable diligence on the part of plaintiff's lawyer.
As this Court stated in Smith v. Clark, 468 So. 2d 138 (Ala.1985):
Under the facts, we should not conclude that the trial court abused the discretion vested in it under subsection (6). The validity of the affidavits pursuant to Rule *75 4.3(d)(1) is unchallenged, and, indeed, comply with that rule. The efforts of plaintiff's attorney to communicate with defendant and his adjuster disclose a level of diligence reasonable at the very least, and thus do not place this case within the class of cases involving "extraordinary circumstances." Moreover, those very facts detailed above disclose a consistency with due process, in accord with the mandate of Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1173 (Ala.1978). Defendant has not shown that the Clarke Circuit Court acted otherwise than within its power, for it clearly possessed jurisdiction of the subject matter and, under the requirements of Rule 4.3(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P., jurisdiction of the defendant. The decisions relied upon by the defendant for a contrary result, I respectfully note, are distinguishable. The case of Webb v. Galloway, 442 So. 2d 53 (Ala.1983), accords with the decision I would reach on this point.
Moreover, we should not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting the argument that it should set aside the default judgment on the basis that venue was proper only in Mobile County. The trial court's position is tenable.
It is true that Rule 82, A.R.Civ.P., rerquires that personal actions against permanent residents of the state may be brought "either in the county where the act or omission ... occurred, or in the county of the permanent residence of the defendant." Even so, improper venue is a defense under Rule 12(b), A.R.Civ.P., and may be waived. Ex parte Tanksley, 418 So. 2d 94 (Ala. 1982). As was stated in Jordan v. Guaranty Pest Control, Inc., 292 Ala. 601, 606, 298 So. 2d 244, 248 (1974): "[I]t seems clear that the appropriate method to attack improper venue is to appear and make timely motion, and on a failure to do so the improper venue is waived." In this case, the trial court could have found that the defendant not only did not appear, but gave the reasonable appearance of avoiding service, to the extent that a proper default judgment could be entered against him. The Rules of Civil Procedure must be construed so as to accommodate each other; it would be disconsonant to allow the proper entry of a default judgment upon a nonappearing party, only to later require the removal of that judgment because the defaulting party chose not to appear and plead. Cf., Ex parte Starr, 419 So. 2d 222 (Ala.1982). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is not intended to relieve a party from the free, calculated, and deliberate choices he has made. Tichansky v. Tichansky, 54 Ala.App. 209, 307 So. 2d 20 (1974), cert. denied, 293 Ala. 775, 307 So. 2d 24 (1975).
Finally, the fact that the defendant may have possessed a meritorious defense does not mean that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment.
The record contains testimony of both the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff testified:
*76 "A. It had to be, I believe. Yeah, in my opinion it had to be travelling fast to come almost a block as quick as it did. When I looked upthey know I wouldn't walk in front of the automobile, if I had known it.
The defendant, on the other hand, testified that he was driving at 5 m.p.h. when the plaintiff stepped into the side of his car, under circumstances in which he could not avoid the accident. This testimony was corroborated by a witness, Carl Patrick Olsen:
This polemic evidence created an issue of fact, but the question remains whether it demonstrates an abuse of the trial court's wide discretion in determining not to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Those disputed facts do not present an extraordinary or compelling circumstance requiring relief. Cf., Howell v. D.H. Holmes, Ltd., 420 So. 2d 26 (Ala.1982). Nor is there anything in such a vein presented in the amount of damages awarded. A review of the record discloses ample proof supporting the damages award.