Title: DaLee v. Crosby Lumber Co., Inc.
Citation: 561 So. 2d 1086
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 1990

561 So. 2d 1086 (1990)
Ray DaLEE, d/b/a Dura-Built Homes
v.
CROSBY LUMBER COMPANY, INC.
88-832.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 6, 1990.
*1087 Von G. Memory, Montgomery, for appellant.
Allan R. Chason of Chason &amp; Chason, Bay Minette, for appellee.
HOUSTON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment refusing to set aside a default judgment against Ray DaLee, d/b/a Dura-Built Homes (hereinafter referred to as "DaLee"). We affirm.
Crosby Lumber Company, Inc. ("Crosby"), filed a one-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County against "RAY DALEE, doing business as DURA BUILT HOMES," seeking damages from DaLee, individually, to compensate for lumber and other wood products purchased by Dura-Built Homes and not paid for. The summons and complaint, delivered by certified mail, read as follows:
DaLee failed to file an answer or to otherwise defend the allegations of the complaint. The trial court, upon application by Crosby, entered a default judgment "in favor of [Crosby] and against Ray DaLee in the sum of $20,932.75 plus costs of court." Three months after entry of judgment, DaLee filed a Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., motion and a motion to transfer, supported by his affidavit:
The trial court denied DaLee's Rule 60(b) motion and determined DaLee's motion to transfer to be moot.[1]
The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying DaLee's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1).[2]
It is well established that the decision to grant or to deny relief pursuant to a Rule 60(b) motion is discretionary with the trial court. Smith v. Clark, 468 So. 2d 138 (Ala.1985); Textron, Inc. v. Whitfield, 380 So. 2d 259 (Ala.1979). In reviewing the trial court's ruling on such a motion, we cannot disturb the trial court's decision unless the trial court abused that discretion in denying the motion. See Baker v. Ball, 473 So. 2d 1031 (Ala.1985); Textron, supra.
In Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc., 524 So. 2d 600 (Ala.1988), the Court outlined the general policy considerations to be weighed when determining whether a default judgment should be set aside:
Id. at 604-05 (citations omitted, emphasis added). The Court in Kirtland established a three-factor analysis for the trial court to apply when considering whether to set aside a default judgment:
Id. at 605 (citations omitted); see also Jones v. Hydro-Wave of Alabama, Inc., 524 So. 2d 610 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 514 So. 2d 1283 (Ala. 1987).[3]
To meet the meritorious-defense element, DaLee need not satisfy the trial court that he would necessarily prevail at trial on the merits, only that he is prepared to present a plausible defense. See Appalachian Stove, supra; see, also, Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., supra. When construing the term "meritorious defense," the Court in Kirtland, quoting from Moldwood Corp. v. Stutts, 410 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir.1969), stated:
"`It is universally recognized as an essential to the obtaining of relief from a default judgment entered with jurisdiction that there should appear in the motion a clear and specific statement showing, not by conclusion, but by definite recitation of facts, that an injustice has been probably done by the judgment, in that the debt or demand was not owing; that there was a valid defense to it, and that on another trial there will in reasonable probability be a different result. All of the authorities require at least this much.'"
524 So. 2d  at 606 (emphasis added); see also Appalachian Stove, supra.
To show the existence of a meritorious defense, DaLee had to allege sufficient facts or produce enough evidence to counter Crosby's claims. DaLee contends that he attached invoices to his affidavit that indicated that the lumber was billed to Dura-Built Homes without reference as to whether Dura-Built Homes was the corporation or DaLee individually. In his motion and in his affidavit, DaLee acknowledged that the corporation owed money to Crosby. However, he contends that he did not realize that, because the complaint was brought against "Ray DaLee, d/b/a Dura-Built Homes," he was personally liable for the corporate debt. Furthermore, he contends that there was no evidence that he is the alter ego of the corporation.
Whether the name on the invoice, "Dura Built Homes," referred to the corporation, for whose debts DaLee was not personally liable, or to DaLee individually created a fact question. DaLee does not have to present an absolute defense; he need only present a plausible defense. This he did. Therefore, we hold that DaLee provided the trial court with a sufficient factual basis on which to conclude that the result *1091 could conceivably be different if it were adjudicated on the merits, see Jones v. Hydro Wave, supra, and that those facts constituted a meritorious defense in accordance with the standard in Kirtland, supra.
However, in order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b), the defaulting party must not only show the existence of a meritorious defense, but also must demonstrate the ground under Rule 60(b) justifying relief from the final judgment. See Kirtland, supra; see, also Jones v. Hydro Wave, supra.
DaLee's Rule 60(b) motion was in fact based on those grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b)(1)mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In his motion, DaLee stated that he "did not understand that this lawsuit against Ray DaLee, d/b/a Dura-Built Homes, was a lawsuit against him individually as opposed to the corporation"; that he therefore "neglected to promptly answer the Complaint, since he did not dispute that his corporation owed the lumber company the amount claimed... in the Complaint"; and that his "error was inadvertent."
"`A party who ignores a summons and, without good excuse, neglects to make his defense at the proper time has no standing in any court when he seeks to avoid the resulting judgment or decree. Read v. Walker, 18 Ala. 323, 333.' Boothe v. Shaw, 214 Ala. 552, 108 So. 563, 564."
Quoted as authority in Fancher v. Fancher, 262 Ala. 489, 80 So. 2d 248 (1955).
Furthermore, the summons that was served on DaLee read "NOTICE TO: Mr. Ray DaLee" and it informed him that "[t]he Complaint which is attached to this Summons is important and you must take immediate action to protect your rights." (Emphasis added.)
In McDavid v. United Mercantile Agencies, Inc., 248 Ala. 297, 301, 27 So. 2d 499, 503 (1946), the Court set out the duty of a party when legal process is duly served upon him:
The explanation given by DaLee for his failure to appear in defense of the suit filed against him by Crosby is not adequate. DaLee has not shown that he was prevented from appearing and defending the suit by "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.
Therefore, although DaLee presented a meritorious defense, he failed to make a showing under Rule 60(b)(1) sufficient to authorize this Court to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
[1]  The trial court's determination that DaLee's motion to transfer was moot is not at issue here.
[2]  DaLee's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment was filed under the provisions of Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). In his reply brief concerning his arguments that the default judgment was void under Rule 60(b)(4), DaLee concedes that "[u]nder the authority of Pridgen v. Head, 210 So. 2d 426, 430 (Ala.1968), ... the jurisdictional defects incident to service of process have been cured or waived." Furthermore, relief cannot be obtained under Rule 60(b)(6) if it would have been available under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5). See Appalachian Stove &amp; Fabricators, Inc. v. Roberts, 544 So. 2d 893 (Ala. 1989); see, also, Cassioppi v. Damico, 536 So. 2d 938 (Ala.1988). Rule 60(b)(6) is designed to operate exclusively of the specific grounds listed in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5). See Appalachian Stove, supra; Cassioppi v. Damico, supra. From a review of the record, we conclude that DaLee's Rule 60(b) motion was in fact based on those grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b)(1). Therefore, we cannot allow it to be improperly termed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Thus, for purposes of this appeal, we are limited to a review of DaLee's motion for relief from judgment under rule 60(b)(1).
[3]  The precedent established by Kirtland, Jones v. Hydro-Wave, and Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., applicable to motions to set aside default judgments pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., was cited as authority by the Court in Lee v. Martin, 533 So. 2d 185 (Ala.1988), when we reversed the trial court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside a default judgment. A trial court's discretionary authority under Rule 60(b) is much broader than it is under Rule 55(c). Cassioppi v. Damico, supra; see also Kirtland, supra.