Title: Deborah Ann Stevens Boudreaux et al. v. Mendal Kemp and Thomasine Kemp Edwards
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1080309
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 16, 2010

REL:04/16/2010 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r 
Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 
1080309 
Deborah Ann Stevens Boudreaux e t a l . 
v. 
Mendal Kemp and Thomasine Kemp Edwards 
Appeal from Cherokee C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-07-122) 
SHAW, 
J u s t i c e . 
Deborah Ann Stevens Boudreaux, S h e l i a J o y Stevens, 
J a n i e 
Dena Harper 
S t a l l i n g s , 
M e l i n d a Luanne M e r r i t t N i x , 
M i c h a e l 
John S t e v e n s , 
C r a i g A l l e n 
S t e v e n s , 
C h a r l e s Edmond 
H a r p e r , 
James 
R i c h a r d 
Harper, 
S h e r r y 
Jean 
Harper 
Shows, 
M a r i a n n 
1080309 
M e r r i t t H o l d e r , Warren Thomas S t e v e n s , R a c h e l J o n n e t t e Stevens 
T h r a s h e r , and P a u l a L . T i d w e l l , t h e 
p u r p o r t e d h e i r s o f F r a n k 
E . 
Stevens 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
r e f e r r e d t o as 
" t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s " ) , a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e Cherokee 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t d e n y i n g t h e i r motion f o r r e l i e f f r o m a d e f a u l t judgment 
i n 
f a v o r o f Mendal Kemp and Thomasine Kemp Edwards, t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s 
below, i n Kemp and Edwards's a c t i o n 
s e e k i n g t o 
e n f o r c e an a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t t o d e v i s e . We r e v e r s e and 
remand. 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
Kemp and Edwards a r e t h e nephew and n i e c e o f B e r n i c e 
Stevens and t h e nephew and n i e c e by m a r r i a g e o f B e r n i c e ' s 
husband, Frank E. S t e v e n s . 
A c c o r d i n g t o 
Kemp and 
Edwards, 
i n 
or around 1995, B e r n i c e and Frank, who were c h i l d l e s s , 
o r a l l y 
a g r e e d t o d e v i s e t h e i r e n t i r e e s t a t e t o 
Kemp and Edwards i n 
exchange f o r 
t h e 
promise t o c a r e f o r 
B e r n i c e and Frank 
u n t i l 
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d e a t h s . 
B e r n i c e d i e d i n 
June 1997. Kemp 
and 
Edwards a l l e g e 
t h a t , i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e h e r d e a t h , B e r n i c e 
reminded 
them o f t h e i r p r o m i s e , and, f o l l o w i n g h e r d e a t h , 
Frank 
renewed 
t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d 
o r a l 
agreement, 
a g a i n 
a l l e g e d l y 
p r o m i s i n g " t h a t i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r 
[Kemp and 
2 
1080309 
E d w a r d s ' s ] l o o k i n g a f t e r [ F r a n k ] d u r i n g t h e remainder o f h i s 
n a t u r a l l i f e , ... [ F r a n k ] would t r a n s f e r t o 
[Kemp and 
E d w a r d s ] 
a l l t h e 
money and 
p r o p e r t y he owned a t 
t h e 
time o f 
h i s d e a t h . " 
A c c o r d i n g t o 
Kemp and 
Edwards, a t a l l 
t i m e s p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o , 
t h e y a c t e d i n 
accordance w i t h and f u l l y p e r f o r m e d t h e terms o f 
the a l l e g e d o r a l agreement. 
Frank 
d i e d i n March 2007, l e a v i n g a w i l l 
e x e c u t e d i n 
1973. 
F r a n k ' s w i l l l e f t n o t h i n g t o 
Kemp and 
E d w a r d s ; i n s t e a d , 
he bequeathed h i s e n t i r e e s t a t e t o B e r n i c e . 
Frank's 
w i l l 
c o n t a i n e d no p r o v i s i o n f o r 
t h e d i s p o s a l o f 
h i s a s s e t s s h o u l d 
B e r n i c e precede him 
i n d e a t h . 
I n May 2007, F r a n k ' s 
w i l l was s u b m i t t e d f o r p r o b a t e t o 
the Cherokee P r o b a t e C o u r t ; Tim Burgess was named p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 
F r a n k ' s e s t a t e . A g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r 
any 
p o t e n t i a l 
h e i r s was a p p o i n t e d by t h e p r o b a t e 
c o u r t . The 
g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m 
r e t a i n e d a g e n e a l o g i s t t o d i s c o v e r any 
p o t e n t i a l h e i r s , and on J u l y 9, 2007, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m 
f i l e d a r e p o r t i n 
t h e 
p r o b a t e c o u r t , i d e n t i f y i n g a t o t a l o f 
15 
g r a n d n i e c e s and grandnephews o f Frank. 
The r e p o r t 
l i s t e d 
a d d r e s s e s f o r 
t h e 
15 i d e n t i f i e d h e i r s , a l l 
o f 
whom were n o t 
3 
1080309 
r e s i d e n t s 
o f 
Alabama, 
and 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
i n c l u d e d 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s . 
I n September 2007, Kemp and 
Edwards f i l e d a c l a i m 
a g a i n s t 
F r a n k ' s 
e s t a t e 
i n t h e p r o b a t e 
c o u r t and a l s o 
f i l e d t h e 
u n d e r l y i n g 
a c t i o n i n t h e Cherokee C i r c u i t C o u r t 
s e e k i n g a 
judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t under t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t t o 
d e v i s e , " t h e 
r e m a i n i n g money a s s e t s and 
p r o p e r t y o f 
t h e e s t a t e 
o f Frank E. Stevens a r e 
t h e 
p r o p e r t y o f 
[Kemp and E d w a r d s ] . " 
The c o m p l a i n t named as d e f e n d a n t s B u r g e s s , i n 
h i s 
c a p a c i t y as 
p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f F r a n k ' s e s t a t e , f i v e a l l e g e d h e i r s 
by name,
1 and any r e m a i n i n g unknown h e i r s . 
I t d i d n o t , 
however, r e f e r e n c e or i n c l u d e t h e r e m a i n i n g h e i r s 
i d e n t i f i e d 
i n t h e 
g e n e a l o g y r e p o r t f i l e d i n 
t h e 
p r o c e e d i n g i n 
t h e 
p r o b a t e 
c o u r t . 
Upon m o t i o n o f 
Kemp and Edwards, f i l e d on September 
21, 2007, and accompanied by an a f f i d a v i t a t t e s t i n g t o t h e i r 
i n a b i l i t y a f t e r " d i l i g e n t i n q u i r y " t o d e t e r m i n e t h e 
names and 
a d d r e s s e s o f 
F r a n k ' s h e i r s , Kemp and 
Edwards were p e r m i t t e d by 
1The 
c o m p l a i n t 
i n d i c a t e d 
t h a t t h e named h e i r s h a d b e e n 
d i s c o v e r e d b y means o f an " I n t e r n e t 
s e a r c h " o f p o s s i b l e 
h e i r s 
p e r f o r m e d b y t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m a p p o i n t e d i n t h e p e n d i n g 
p r o b a t e 
c a s e . 
These 
f i v e 
i n d i v i d u a l s were t h e f i r s t 
f i v e 
h e i r s 
i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s 
r e p o r t and 
a r e 
f i v e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s . 
4 
1080309 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o s e r v e t h e 
f i v e named h e i r s and any 
r e m a i n i n g 
unknown 
h e i r s 
by 
p u b l i c a t i o n .
2 
T h e r e a f t e r , 
b e g i n n i n g 
September 27, 2007, 
n o t i c e o f t h e d e c l a r a t o r y -
judgment a c t i o n was p u b l i s h e d i n 
t h e 
Cherokee County H e r a l d , 
a l o c a l newspaper, f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e weeks. 
On O c t o b e r 8, 2007, Burgess f i l e d an answer t o 
Kemp and 
Edwards's c o m p l a i n t d e n y i n g t h e 
e x i s t e n c e of 
an o r a l c o n t r a c t 
t o d e v i s e and a v e r r i n g t h a t , i f 
Kemp and 
Edwards's a l l e g a t i o n s 
were t r u e , t h e i r 
c l a i m s would be b a r r e d by t h e S t a t u t e of 
F r a u d s .
3 
B u r g e s s ' s 
answer 
a d m i t t e d 
t h a t 
Frank was n o t 
2As d i s c u s s e d i n 
more d e t a i l below, R u l e 4 . 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., p r o v i d e s , 
i n p e r t i n e n t 
p a r t , 
t h a t 
" [ b ] e f o r e 
s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n can be made i n an a c t i o n where t h e 
i d e n t i t y or r e s i d e n c e 
of a defendant i s unknown ... an 
a f f i d a v i t of 
a p a r t y or 
the 
p a r t y ' s c o u n s e l must be f i l e d w i t h 
the c o u r t a v e r r i n g t h a t s e r v i c e of summons or o t h e r 
p r o c e s s 
cannot be made because e i t h e r t h e r e s i d e n c e i s 
unknown t o the 
a f f i a n t and cannot w i t h r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e be a s c e r t a i n e d , 
or, the i d e n t i t y of the defendant i s 
unknown 
" 
3On O c t o b e r 2, 2007, b e f o r e f i l i n g h i s answer, Burgess 
had 
moved t o d i s m i s s Kemp and Edwards's c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o § 
43-2-131, A l a . Code 1975, 
on grounds t h a t , a t t h e time t h e 
d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t 
a c t i o n was 
i n i t i a t e d , 
t h e s i x - m o n t h 
c l a i m s p e r i o d i n 
t h e 
p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g had 
n o t e x p i r e d , nor 
had 
B u r g e s s , as p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f F r a n k ' s 
e s t a t e , 
c o n t e s t e d Kemp and Edwards's c l a i m . 
S e c t i o n 43-2-131 s t a t e s 
t h a t " [ n ] o 
c i v i l a c t i o n must be commenced a g a i n s t an e x e c u t o r 
or a d m i n i s t r a t o r , as such, u n t i l s i x months a f t e r the 
g r a n t of 
l e t t e r s t e s t a m e n t a r y or 
of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , u n l e s s the e x e c u t o r 
or a d m i n i s t r a t o r has g i v e n n o t i c e of the d i s a l l o w a n c e of 
the 
c l a i m . " I n h i s 
m o t i o n , Burgess f u r t h e r argued, among 
o t h e r 
5 
1080309 
s u r v i v e d by h i s 
p a r e n t s o r g r a n d p a r e n t s , by any s i b l i n g s , o r 
by any n i e c e s and 
nephews; 
however, i n 
t h a t p l e a d i n g , Burgess 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
s t a t e d t h a t " a f f i d a v i t s 
of h e i r s h i p of F r a n k E . 
Stevens have been f i l e d i n 
t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t ... 
w h i c h ... s e t 
f o r t h t h e 
names and a d d r e s s e s o f 
t h e 
h e i r s a t 
l a w 
of F r a n k E . 
S t e v e n s . " 
None of t h e a p p e l l a n t s or t h e o t h e r h e i r s appeared o r 
answered i n r e s p o n s e 
t o Kemp and Edwards's 
s e r v i c e by 
p u b l i c a t i o n , and, on F e b r u a r y 5, 2008, Kemp and Edwards 
a p p l i e d f o r 
t h e e n t r y of d e f a u l t and a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . On 
t h a t same d a t e , t h e c i r c u i t 
c l e r k 
e x e c u t e d an " e n t r y o f 
d e f a u l t " 
a g a i n s t t h e h e i r s o f t h e e s t a t e - - b o t h named and 
unnamed.
4 
On F e b r u a r y 20, 2008, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a bench 
t r i a l . No h e i r s appeared o r moved t o s e t 
a s i d e t h e p r e t r i a l 
e n t r y o f d e f a u l t . 
However, as n o t e d by Kemp and 
Edwards, 
t h e 
t h i n g s , t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t named improper p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s . 
A l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e 
m o t i o n , i t appears 
t h a t 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t took no a c t i o n u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 11, 2008, 
when Burgess 
f i l e d a n o t i c e i n 
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t Kemp and Edwards's c l a i m a g a i n s t F r a n k ' s e s t a t e i n t h e 
p r o b a t e a c t i o n had been " d e n i e d i n whole." 
4The 
r e c o r d b e f o r e us does n o t c o n t a i n a j u d g m e n t b y 
d e f a u l t . 
6 
1080309 
r e c o r d does r e f l e c t t h a t " s e v e r a l " o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s 
a t t e n d e d 
the t r i a l . 
E x c e p t f o r t h e 
t e s t i m o n y o f M e l i s s a O'Neal Harper, 
the w i f e o f James R i c h a r d Harper, F r a n k ' s grandnephew, w h i c h 
was 
p r e s e n t e d by t h e p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , no h e i r s and 
none o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d or 
were h e a r d by 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t d u r i n g t h e 
bench t r i a l . 
A t t h e 
c l o s e of t h e 
e v i d e n c e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t took t h e 
m a t t e r under 
s u b m i s s i o n . 
On J u l y 8, 2008, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment 
i n 
f a v o r o f Kemp and Edwards, c o n c l u d i n g 
t h a t Kemp and Edwards 
had d e m o n s t r a t e d by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t " t h e 
agreement a l l e g e d by [Kemp and 
Edwards] e x i s t e d and t h a t t h e y 
[had] 
p e r f o r m e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e agreement." 
I n i t s 
o r d e r , as r e q u e s t e d 
i n t h e t r i a l 
b r i e f 
f i l e d by Kemp and 
Edwards, t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
f u r t h e r imposed a c o n s t r u c t i v e 
t r u s t i n f a v o r of Kemp and Edwards on t h e a s s e t s o f F r a n k ' s 
e s t a t e , s u b j e c t t o 
payment o f 
t h e 
d e b t s o f 
t h e 
e s t a t e , i f 
any, 
and t h e 
expenses of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e . 
On August 7, 2008, Burgess f i l e d a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e 
judgment o r , 
i n 
t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r 
a new t r i a l . 
On t h a t 
same d a t e , t h e a p p e l l a n t s a l s o 
f i l e d a 
postjudgment motion 
f o r a new t r i a l and 
an accompanying m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o s t a y 
t h e 
7 
1080309 
e x e c u t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. 
I n t h e i r m o t i o n , 
the a p p e l l a n t s argued, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e d e f a u l t 
judgment was improper and t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a new 
t r i a l because, t h e y s a i d , s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n was improper 
under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
5 
Kemp and Edwards moved t o s t r i k e any p l e a d i n g s 
f i l e d by 
the 
a p p e l l a n t s 
on 
grounds 
t h a t 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s 
were 
d i s p e n s a b l e , u n n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s , t h a t t h e y l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o 
pursue t h e 
r e q u e s t e d 
r e l i e f because t h e i r i n t e r e s t s 
were b e i n g 
r e p r e s e n t e d by B u r g e s s , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of F r a n k ' s 
e s t a t e , and t h a t t h e y had f a i l e d t o move t o i n t e r v e n e under 
R u l e 24, A l a . R. C i v . P. 
F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t s t r u c k t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' p l e a d i n g s on grounds t h a t t h e y 
had 
f a i l e d t o i n t e r v e n e , and because, i t c o n c l u d e d , 
t h e i r 
i n t e r e s t s were a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by B u r g e s s . The c i r c u i t 
5They a l s o argued t h a t a new t r i a l was n e c e s s a r y because, 
t h e y s a i d , t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by Kemp and Edwards was 
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s ; because 
o r a l 
c o n t r a c t s t o d e v i s e may n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d s o l e l y by 
t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e ; and because o f an a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of 
i n t e r e s t 
r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t 
t h a t 
B u r g e s s ' s 
c o u n s e l had 
p r e v i o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d Kemp i n 
t h e p r o c e e d i n g 
i n 
w h i c h Kemp 
was named c o n s e r v a t o r o f F r a n k ' s e s t a t e . 
8 
1080309 
c o u r t a l s o d e n i e d B u r g e s s ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 
T h i s 
a p p e a l 
f o l l o w e d .
6 
D i s c u s s i o n 
The 
a p p e l l a n t s 
a l l e g e f o u r s e p a r a t e g r o u n d s o f e r r o r 
w i t h 
r e g a r d t o t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Kemp a n d 
E d w a r d s . 
I n i t i a l l y , we a d d r e s s t h e i r a r g u m e n t t h a t s e r v i c e b y 
p u b l i c a t i o n was i m p r o p e r . Our r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s 
i s s u e i s 
d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
o f t h e a p p e a l . 
A l t h o u g h 
f i l e d more t h a n s i x 
months a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f 
d e f a u l t b y t h e c i r c u i t 
c l e r k a n d s t y l e d a s a m o t i o n f o r 
a new 
t r i a l , 
we 
c o n s t r u e 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s ' 
A u g u s t 
7, 
2008, 
p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , 
A l a . R. C i v . 
P., m o t i o n 
t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t was t i m e l y 
f i l e d 
w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t became 
f i n a l . 
See 
 
H a l l m a n v . M a r i o n C o r p . , 411 So. 2d 130, 132 ( A l a . 1982) ("A 
j u d g m e n t by 
d e f a u l t , 
r e n d e r e d 
i n a d v a n c e 
a g a i n s t 
one o f 
s e v e r a l d e f e n d a n t s , i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y u n t i l 
f i n a l 
d i s p o s i t i o n 
i s made as t o a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s . " ( c i t a t i o n 
o m i t t e d ) ) ; 
F o r d 
 
M o t o r 
C r e d i t Co. v. C a r m i c h a e l , 383 So. 2d 539, 542 
( A l a . 
6 B u r g e s s , a s p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
o f F r a n k ' s 
e s t a t e , 
d o e s n o t a p p e a l . 
9 
1080309 
1980) 
("[A] j u d g m e n t by d e f a u l t , r e n d e r e d i n a d v a n c e a g a i n s t 
one 
o f 
s e v e r a l 
d e f e n d a n t s , 
i s 
i n t e r l o c u t o r y , 
u n t i l 
f i n a l 
d i s p o s i t i o n i s made as t o a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s . " ) ; M c C o n i c o v. 
C o r r e c t i o n a l Med. 
S e r v s . , I n c . , [Ms. 2 0 7 1 0 0 1 , J u n e 19, 2009] 
So. 3d 
, 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
200 9) ( " [ B ] e c a u s e an e n t r y 
o f 
d e f a u l t i s no more t h a n an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r , i t i s n o t 
a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , and 
r e l i e f 
f r o m s u c h an o r d e r i s a v a i l a b l e 
u n d e r R u l e 
5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. 
C i v . P.,] 
r e g a r d l e s s o f when t h e 
r e q u e s t i s made."); and L a w l e r M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v. 
E l l i s o n , 
361 So. 2d 1092, 
1094 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1978) 
( n o t i n g b o t h 
t h a t 
" t h e 
d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t 
... 
b e c a u s e 
o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f 
R u l e 
5 4 ( b ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] 
was n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t and d i d n o t 
become 
f i n a l 
and 
a p p e a l a b l e 
u n t i l 
t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t 
d i s m i s s i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t 
" and t h a t 
" d e f e n d a n t 
had 
t h i r t y 
d a y s t h e r e a f t e r t o 
f i l e 
a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e 
d e f a u l t 
j u d g m e n t " ) . 
In Cameron v. 
T i l l i s , 
952 
So. 
2d 352, 
353 
( A l a . 2006), 
t h i s C o u r t s e t out the f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e 
t o an o r d e r r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment: 
"'The 
s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i n the case of an o r d e r 
s e t t i n g a s i d e , or r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e , a d e f a u l t 
judgment p r o c e e d s on the b a s i s t h a t the 
t r i a l judge 
has 
g r e a t 
d i s c r e t i o n , and 
h i s judgment w i l l 
not 
be 
10 
1080309 
d i s t u r b e d 
u n l e s s he 
has 
c l e a r l y 
[exceeded] 
such 
d i s c r e t i o n . ' R o b e r t s v. W e t t l i n , 431 So. 2d 524, 
526 
( A l a . 
1983). However, '[w]hen the g r a n t or 
d e n i a l 
[of a r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f from a judgment] t u r n s on 
the 
v a l i d i t y 
of the judgment, 
d i s c r e t i o n 
has 
no 
p l a c e f o r o p e r a t i o n . I f the judgment i s v o i d , i t i s 
t o be s e t a s i d e ; i f i t i s v a l i d , 
i t must s t a n d . ' 
Smith v. C l a r k , 468 So. 2d 138, 141 
( A l a . 1985)." 
A p p l y i n g 
t h e 
f o r e g o i n g s t a n d a r d t o the 
f a c t s 
of 
the 
p r e s e n t c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t the d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d 
a g a i n s t the h e i r s i s v o i d . 
"The f a i l u r e t o e f f e c t p r o p e r s e r v i c e under R u l e 
4, A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
d e p r i v e s the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t of 
p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over the d e f e n d a n t and r e n d e r s 
a d e f a u l t judgment v o i d . Cameron v. 
T i l l i s , 952 
So. 
2d 352 
( A l a . 2006); Image Auto, I n c . v. Mike 
K e l l e y  
E n t e r s . , I n c . , [823 So. 2d 655, 657 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] . In 
Bank o f A m e r i c a 
[Corp. v. Edwards, 881 So. 2d 
403 
( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] , our supreme c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d : 
"'"One of the r e q u i s i t e s of p e r s o n a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over a d e f e n d a n t i s ' p e r f e c t e d 
s e r v i c e 
of p r o c e s s 
g i v i n g 
n o t i c e 
t o the 
d e f e n d a n t 
o f the 
s u i t b e i n g b r o u g h t . ' 
Ex 
 
p a r t e 
Volkswagenwerk 
A k t i e n g e s e l l s c h a f t , 
443 So. 2d 880, 884 
( A l a . 1983). 'When the 
s e r v i c e 
of p r o c e s s 
on 
the 
d e f e n d a n t 
i s 
c o n t e s t e d as b e i n g improper or i n v a l i d , the 
burden 
of p r o o f 
i s on 
the 
p l a i n t i f f 
t o 
prove t h a t s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s was 
p e r f o r m e d 
c o r r e c t l y 
and 
l e g a l l y . ' 
I d . A 
judgment 
r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t i n the absence 
of 
p e r s o n a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
t h a t 
d e f e n d a n t i s v o i d . 
S a t t e r f i e l d 
v. 
Winston  
I n d u s t r i e s , 
I n c . , 
553 
So. 
2d 
61 
( A l a . 
1989)."' 
11 
1080309 
v. 
so 
"881 So. 2d a t 405, q u o t i n g H o r i z o n s 2000, 
I n c . 
 
Smith, 620 So. 2d 606, 607 ( A l a . 1993). See 
a l 
N o r t h b r o o k [Indem. Co. v. Westgate, L t d . , ] 769 So. 
2d [890] 
a t 893 [ ( A l a . 
2 0 0 0 ) ] . 
"Rule 
4.3(d), 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., governs t h e 
p r o c e d u r e f o r 
s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n and p r o v i d e s , 
i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , 
"'(1) 
A f f i d a v i t 
N e c e s s a r y . 
B e f o r e 
s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n can be made i n 
an 
a c t i o n where t h e i d e n t i t y o r r e s i d e n c e o f 
a d e f e n d a n t i s unknown ... or where t h e 
d e f e n d a n t a v o i d s s e r v i c e , an a f f i d a v i t of 
a p a r t y o r t h e p a r t y ' s 
c o u n s e l must be 
f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u r t a v e r r i n g t h a t s e r v i c e 
of summons or o t h e r p r o c e s s cannot be made 
because e i t h e r t h e r e s i d e n c e i s 
unknown t o 
the 
a f f i a n t 
and cannot 
w i t h 
r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e be a s c e r t a i n e d , o r , 
t h e i d e n t i t y 
of t h e d e f e n d a n t i s unknown ... o r , 
t h e 
d e f e n d a n t a v o i d s 
s e r v i c e , a v e r r i n g 
f a c t s 
showing such 
a v o i d a n c e . 
"'(2) How P u b l i s h e d . Upon t h e f i l i n g 
of t h e a f f i d a v i t t h e c l e r k 
s h a l l 
d i r e c t 
t h a t 
s e r v i c e 
of 
n o t i c e 
be 
made 
by 
p u b l i c a t i o n 
i n a newspaper 
o f 
g e n e r a l 
c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e 
c o m p l a i n t i s f i l e d ; and, when p u b l i c a t i o n 
i s 
a u t h o r i z e d under 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
4 . 3 ( c ) , 
a l s o i n 
t h e c o u n t y of t h e 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
l a s t 
known 
l o c a t i o n o r r e s i d e n c e 
w i t h i n t h e 
U n i t e d S t a t e s . I f 
no newspaper of g e n e r a l 
c i r c u l a t i o n i s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e county, 
then p u b l i c a t i o n s h a l l be i n 
a newspaper o f 
g e n e r a l 
c i r c u l a t i o n 
p u b l i s h e d 
i n an 
a d j o i n i n g 
c o u n t y . ' " 
12 
1080309 
N i c h o l s v. P a t e , 992 So. 2d 734, 736-37 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) 
(emphasis o m i t t e d ) .
7 
In t h e 
p r e s e n t c a s e , as n o t e d above, Kemp and Edwards's 
a f f i d a v i t , 
which was f i l e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r 
r e q u e s t t o 
s e r v e t h e 
h e i r s o f F r a n k ' s e s t a t e by p u b l i c a t i o n , s t a t e d t h a t 
the names and a d d r e s s e s o f F r a n k ' s 
h e i r s 
remained unknown 
" a f t e r d i l i g e n t i n q u i r y . " 
I n t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s 
argue 
t h a t Kemp and Edwards d i d n o t a c t u a l l y 
e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e i n 
a t t e m p t i n g t o a s c e r t a i n t h e 
names and a d d r e s s e s of F r a n k ' s h e i r s . 
We agree. 
A l t h o u g h 
Kemp and Edwards's a f f i d a v i t was s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e 
t e c h n i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of 
R u l e 4 . 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
and 
the averments i n t h a t 
a f f i d a v i t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , we 
remain 
unpersuaded 
t h a t d i l i g e n t i n q u i r y was, 
i n f a c t , u n d e r t a k e n as 
r e q u i r e d by R u l e 4.3. Compare Shaddix v. Shaddix, 603 So. 
2d 
7 B e f o r e t h e most r e c e n t amendment t o R u l e 4.3, A l a . R. 
C i v . P., which was e f f e c t i v e August 1, 2004, and 
which removed 
the word " r e s i d e n t " from t h e t e x t o f R u l e 4 . 3 ( c ) , t h e c o u r t s 
of 
t h i s 
s t a t e had c o n s i s t e n t l y 
h e l d , w i t h a s i n g l e 
n o t e d 
e x c e p t i o n , " t h a t p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d n o t 
be o b t a i n e d 
over a n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t t h r o u g h s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . " 
Vogus v. Angry, 744 So. 2d 934, 936 ( A l a . C i v . App. 
1999) 
( c i t i n g Shaddix v. Shaddix, 603 So. 2d 1096, 1098 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 
1 9 9 2 ) ) . 
See a l s o Wise v. S i e g e l , 527 So. 2d 1281, 1282 
( A l a . 1988); W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 910 So. 2d 1284, 1287 
n.5 
( A l a . C i v . App. 2005). 
13 
1080309 
1096, 1097-98 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 1992) ( f i n d i n g t h a t " i t [ d i d ] 
not 
a f f i r m a t i v e l y appear from an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e c o r d 
t h a t a d i l i g e n t e f f o r t t o l o c a t e t h e [defendant] was made ... 
or t h a t such an e f f o r t would have proven 
f u t i l e " ) . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
a l t h o u g h we have 
p r e v i o u s l y 
h e l d 
t h a t 
" ' [ i ] t i s 
n o t r e a s o n a b l e o r l o g i c a l t o r e q u i r e 
[ s e r v i c e 
f i r s t 
by a method o t h e r t h a n p u b l i c a t i o n ] where t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s 
r e s i d e n c e i s 
unknown,'" see K i l p a t r i c k v. K i l p a t r i c k , 628 
So. 
2d 729, 
731 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g Brooks v. B r o o k s , 
494 So. 2d 645, 647 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 1 9 8 6 ) ) , t h e r e c o r d 
r e f l e c t s 
t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' a d d r e s s e s were n o t , 
i n f a c t , 
unknown o r , 
a t l e a s t , would n o t have remained so upon t h e 
e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e by Kemp and 
Edwards. As 
s e t 
out above, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s genealogy 
r e p o r t i n t h e 
p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e p r o b a t e 
c o u r t , 
which 
i d e n t i f i e d a l l o f 
F r a n k ' s p o t e n t i a l h e i r s — i n c l u d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t s - - w a s c l e a r l y 
f i l e d b e f o r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o m p l a i n t and t h e accompanying 
motion t o s e r v e F r a n k ' s h e i r s by p u b l i c a t i o n were f i l e d . I t 
i s 
u n d i s p u t e d 
t h a t Kemp and Edwards had appeared i n t h a t 
p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g — b y 
f i l i n g a c l a i m a g a i n s t F r a n k ' s e s t a t e - -
b e f o r e t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t 
a c t i o n was 
f i l e d 
i n 
t h e 
14 
1080309 
c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
F u r t h e r , as t h e a p p e l l a n t s argued i n t h e i r 
p o s t t r i a l 
m o t i o n , 
B u r g e s s ' s 
answer t o Kemp and Edwards's 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l s o p o i n t e d out t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g any 
h e i r s was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n 
t h e f i l e i n 
t h e 
p r o b a t e c o u r t 
p r o c e e d i n g , which Kemp and 
Edwards's c o m p l a i n t i n d i c a t e d t h e y 
had 
p r e v i o u s l y a c c e s s e d 
i n t h e i r 
s e a r c h f o r i n f o r m a t i o n 
r e g a r d i n g Frank's h e i r s . 
D e s p i t e t h a t d i s c l o s u r e , no a c t i o n s 
were t a k e n by Kemp and Edwards t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o 
t h e h e i r s 
found by t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . 
I n f a c t , Kemp and Edwards's 
a f f i d a v i t 
d i d n o t i d e n t i f y 
any e f f o r t s , 
o t h e r 
t h a n t h e 
p u r p o r t e d r e v i e w of t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t 
f i l e , 
t h a t were made i n 
an attempt t o l o c a t e Frank's h e i r s b e f o r e 
s e e k i n g t o s e r v e them by p u b l i c a t i o n . 
As n o t e d i n 
March v.  
S t r i n g e r , 518 So. 2d 65 ( A l a . 1987), 
w i t h 
r e g a r d t o 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
f a i l u r e 
t o t a k e 
even 
t h e m i n i m a l 
s t e p of 
c o n s u l t i n g t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r i e s , " r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e would 
suggest 
t h a t 
[such 
s t e p s ] 
be 
t r i e d 
b e f o r e 
s e r v i c e by 
p u b l i c a t i o n be employed." 
518 So. 2d a t 70. 
The r e c o r d 
b e f o r e us demonstrates 
t h a t t h e names and a d d r e s s e s o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s c o u l d have been e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n e d , e n a b l i n g them 
t o be s e r v e d by a method o t h e r than 
p u b l i c a t i o n . 
15 
1080309 
T h i s 
C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y 
h e l d 
t h a t 
" ' [ f ] a i l u r e t o 
e x e r c i s e due d i l i g e n c e i n p e r f e c t i n g 
p e r s o n a l 
s e r v i c e of 
p r o c e s s p r e c l u d e s 
n o t i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . ' " 
R e i d v. T i n g l e , 
716 So. 2d 1190, 1195 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Shaddix 
v. Shaddix, 603 So. 2d a t 1098, w h i c h c i t e s i n t u r n Sams v. 
E q u i t a b l e 
L i f e A s s u r a n c e Soc'y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , 402 So. 
2d 999 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 1 9 8 1 ) ) . 
I n Sams, s u p r a , t h e C o u r t o f 
C i v i l A p p e a l s o b s e r v e d : 
"The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t a p p e l l a n t knew where 
I r i s Holmes l i v e d , knew h e r c o r r e c t a d d r e s s a t a l l 
t i m e s p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s 
i n q u i r y and, y e t , 
made no 
e f f o r t t o s e r v e h e r w i t h p r o c e s s a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l 
e f f o r t 
f a i l e d because o f an e r r o n e o u s a d d r e s s . A 
p l a i n t i f f must e x e r c i s e due d i l i g e n c e i n p e r f e c t i n g 
p e r s o n a l 
s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s on a d e f e n d a n t and t h e 
f a i l u r e t o do so p r e c l u d e s 
n o t i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . 
W h i t f i e l d v. Sanders, A l a . , 
366 So. 2d 258 (1979). 
The 
f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y 
n o t i f y a d e f e n d a n t o f t h e 
a c t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t him d e p r i v e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t of 
p e r s o n a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p a r t y and a d e f a u l t 
judgment r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t s a i d p a r t y would be v o i d . 
W h i t f i e l d v. Sanders, 
s u p r a . 
"The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t Tommie Sams was 
f u l l y 
aware o f 
I r i s 
Holmes's 
a d d r e s s a t a l l t i m e s i n 
q u e s t i o n . 
Under 
such 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
n o t i c e 
by 
p u b l i c a t i o n was 
i n s u f f i c i e n t 
t o i n v e s t t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
w i t h 
j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e d e f a u l t judgment 
r e n d e r e d 
a g a i n s t 
h e r was 
v o i d and p r o p e r l y s e t 
a s i d e . " 
402 So. 2d a t 1001. 
S i m i l a r l y , 
h e r e , 
a l t h o u g h Kemp and 
Edwards may n o t have been 
f u l l y 
aware of t h e names and 
16 
1080309 
a d d r e s s e s o f a l l F r a n k ' s h e i r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t s , 
i t 
appears t h a t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r o b a t e 
c o u r t 
p r o c e e d i n g s — i n 
w h i c h 
Kemp 
and 
Edwards 
were 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g - - b e f o r e 
t h e y 
f i l e d 
t h e i r 
c o m p l a i n t 
i n t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
Thus, t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e 
names and 
a d d r e s s e s o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s were r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e w i t h no 
a d d i t i o n a l 
i n v e s t i g a t i v e 
e f f o r t s 
r e q u i r e d 
on Kemp and 
Edwards's p a r t and t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' names and a d d r e s s e s 
c o u l d have, w i t h 
r e a s o n a b l e 
d i l i g e n c e , been a s c e r t a i n e d i n 
o r d e r 
t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s 
c o u l d have e a s i l y been s e r v e d by 
c e r t i f i e d 
m a i l . 
Under 
t h e s e 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 
n o t i c e by 
p u b l i c a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s , and t h e d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t them i s v o i d . 
In 
t h e i r 
b r i e f t o t h i s 
C o u r t , Kemp and Edwards argue 
t h a t , 
even 
assuming 
t h a t 
n o t i c e 
by 
p u b l i c a t i o n 
was 
i n s u f f i c i e n t , t h e 
a p p e l l a n t s w a i v e d any d e f e c t s i n 
s e r v i c e by 
a t t e n d i n g t h e 
bench t r i a l o f t h i s m a t t e r on F e b r u a r y 20, 2008. 
As i n d i c a t e d above, t h e r e c o r d does r e f l e c t t h a t c e r t a i n 
o f , 
but n o t a l l , t h e a p p e l l a n t s 
a t t e n d e d t h e t r i a l , 
presumably 
because of 
t h e 
n o t i c e conveyed t o 
them by Burgess i n 
t h e case 
p e n d i n g i n 
t h e 
p r o b a t e c o u r t . 
F u r t h e r , i t 
i s 
t r u e t h a t 
t h i s 
17 
1080309 
C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y acknowledged t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may 
waive 
d e f e c t s 
i n 
s e r v i c e 
by 
v o l u n t a r i l y 
a p p e a r i n g 
i n 
the 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
See, 
e.g., 
Cooper v. Watts, 280 A l a . 236, 
239, 
191 
So. 
2d 519, 
521 
(1966) 
("'It i s e l e m e n t a r y law t h a t i n 
o r d e r 
f o r a c o u r t t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n of the p e r s o n 
t h e r e 
must be s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s or v o l u n t a r y appearance.'" 
( q u o t i n g 
Ex 
p a r t e 
Gunter, 
17 
A l a . App. 
313, 
315, 
86 
So. 
146, 
147 
(1919)). However, t h a t p r i n c i p l e has 
no 
a p p l i c a t i o n t o 
the 
p r e s e n t 
case--where the 
few 
a p p e l l a n t s who 
d i d a t t e n d 
the 
t r i a l 
d i d 
not 
a c t u a l l y 
"appear" 
as 
p a r t i e s , 
were 
not 
r e p r e s e n t e d 
by 
c o u n s e l , 
and 
d i d 
not 
p a r t i c i p a t e i n 
the 
p r o c e e d i n g 
i n any m e a n i n g f u l way. 
See Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 
900 
So. 2d 412, 415-16 ( A l a . 2004) ("'An 
appearance i n an a c t i o n 
i n v o l v e s some s u b m i s s i o n or p r e s e n t a t i o n t o the c o u r t by which 
a 
p a r t y 
shows 
h i s 
i n t e n t i o n 
t o 
submit 
h i m s e l f 
t o 
the 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
of 
the 
c o u r t . ' " 
( q u o t i n g 
C o c k r e l l v. 
World's  
F i n e s t C h o c o l a t e 
Co., 
349 
So. 
2d 
1117, 
1120 
( A l a . 
1 9 7 7 ) ) . 
T h e r e f o r e , e v i d e n c e of mere a t t e n d a n c e a t the t r i a l by some of 
the a p p e l l a n t s i s not c o m p e l l i n g . 
Moreover, d e s p i t e Kemp and 
Edwards's arguments t o the c o n t r a r y , the a p p e l l a n t s a t t e n d i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u l d not have a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the 
t r i a l 
18 
1080309 
because of t h e 
p r e v i o u s e n t r y o f d e f a u l t a g a i n s t them by 
t h e 
c l e r k . 
See McGugin v. McGugin, 23 So. 3d 682, 
684 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 2009) ( " A f t e r an e n t r y o f d e f a u l t , t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y 
' l o s e s h i s s t a n d i n g i n 
c o u r t , cannot appear i n 
any 
way, cannot 
adduce any e v i d e n c e 
and cannot be h e a r d a t t h e 
f i n a l 
h e a r i n g . ' " 
( q u o t i n g D o r c a l , I n c . v. Xerox Corp., 398 So. 
2d 
665, 670 ( A l a . 
1981)) ( a d d i t i o n a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . 
Whether t h e h e i r s t o F r a n k ' s e s t a t e were n e c e s s a r y and 
i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s t o t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n , an i s s u e we do 
n o t 
r e a c h , we f i n d t h a t h a v i n g named t h e 
h e i r s as d e f e n d a n t s , Kemp 
and Edwards were r e q u i r e d t o p r o p e r l y s e r v e them as p r o v i d e d 
f o r by R u l e 4.3. Having f a i l e d t o 
do so, t h e 
d e f a u l t judgment 
e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e 
h e i r s was v o i d , see 
Ex p a r t e W i l s o n Lumber  
Co., 410 So. 2d 407, 
409 ( A l a . 
1982) ("'To a u t h o r i z e a c o u r t 
t o p r o c e e d , i t 
must a c q u i r e 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over d e f e n d a n t i n 
some mode a u t h o r i z e d by law, by s e r v i c e o r o t h e r means, and 
... a judgment r e n d e r e d w i t h o u t a c q u i r i n g such j u r i s d i c t i o n 
i s 
a n u l l i t y . ' " ) , and 
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t 
the a p p e l l a n t s r e l i e f from t h e 
judgment a g a i n s t them. 
Based 
on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we 
r e v e r s e 
t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
s t r i k i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' postjudgment m o t i o n , 
i n s t r u c t t h e 
19 
1080309 
c i r c u i t c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e d e f a u l t judgment, and remand t h e 
case f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , S m i t h , and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 
20