Cornelius v. Browning

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that a default judgment against Jeff Cornelius was void because the plaintiffs’ method of notifying him of the default-judgment motion was not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice, violating due process. Cornelius’s pro se answer constituted an appearance, and the court reversed the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4), remanding for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Cornelius's answer, which disputed the complaint's claims and included his telephone number, was sufficient to constitute an appearance and entitled him to notice of the application for a default judgment.
2. Mailing the default-judgment motion to an address the plaintiffs knew was undeliverable was not reasonably calculated to notify Cornelius and did not satisfy due process.
3. Because the trial court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, the default judgment was void and Cornelius was entitled to have it set aside under Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the default judgment was void because Cornelius did not receive constitutionally adequate notice of the motion for default judgment.
2. Whether Cornelius's pro se answer constituted an appearance entitling him to notice under Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P.
3. Whether mailing the default-judgment motion to an address the plaintiffs knew was undeliverable satisfied due process.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded