Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd.'s Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a default judgment. Although service of process on Kingvision was insufficient, the court held that Kingvision failed to overcome the presumption that its attorney was authorized to file pleadings, which waived the service-of-process defense under Rule 12(h)(1).

Holdings

1. An attorney's appearance on behalf of a party is presumed authorized, and the party challenging the attorney's authority bears the burden of proving the lack of authority, including when a defaulted defendant claims that it did not authorize the attorney to appear or waive service objections.
2. A defendant waives the defense of insufficient service of process when it files a Rule 12 motion, responsive pleading, or amendment without asserting that defense.
3. The default judgment was not void because Kingvision waived its objection to insufficient service of process, and its personal-jurisdiction challenge was based solely on that waived service objection.
4. A conclusory affidavit statement concerning the scope of a principal's contemplated attorney representation is inadmissible when the witness fails to establish personal knowledge and fails to introduce the documents or communications underlying the conclusion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kingvision overcame the presumption that an attorney appearing for a party was authorized to act on the party's behalf.
2. Whether the filing of pleadings that omitted an objection to insufficient service of process waived that defense under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1).
3. Whether the default judgment was void for insufficient service of process or lack of personal jurisdiction.
4. Whether Kingvision was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) based on the asserted meritorious defense and the Kirtland three-factor analysis.

Disposition

affirmed