TA Financial, Inc. v. Discover Bank

967 So. 2d 90, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 61, 2007 WL 1098554
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 13, 2007
Docket1060301
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 967 So. 2d 90 (TA Financial, Inc. v. Discover Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
TA Financial, Inc. v. Discover Bank, 967 So. 2d 90, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 61, 2007 WL 1098554 (Ala. 2007).

Opinion

WOODALL, Justice.

TA Financial, Inc. (“TA”), appeals from a default judgment against it awarding injunctive relief to Discover Bank (“Discover”) in an action filed by Discover against -TA and others. We reverse and remand.

On June 14, 2006, Discover filed a motion for a default judgment against TA based solely on TA’s failure to file, through counsel, an answer to Discover’s complaint. The motion indicated that the trial court would consider it at a hearing on June 22. Significantly, on June 21, counsel filed an answer on behalf of TA.

The record indicates that the hearing was held on June 22. However, the record does not include a transcript of that hearing. Subsequently, the trial court granted Discover’s motion and entered a judgment by default against TA for the injunctive relief sought by Discover.

TA, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 55(c), filed a motion to set aside the judgment by default. The motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1. TA then appealed to this Court.

TA argues that “the defect complained of by Discover [in its motion for a judgment by default] was rectified prior to the [91]*91trial court’s order granting default.” TA’s brief, at 30. Our review of the record confirms that TA’s answer was filed before the hearing on the motion. Consequently, as Discover concedes in correspondence to this Court, “the filing of that answer cured the default before any default judgment was entered. Thus, the default judgment should not have been entered.”

For these reasons, the default judgment against TA is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COBB, C.J., and SEE, SMITH, and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Justice v. Wallace
272 So. 3d 651 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2018)
Ward v. Johnathan Motors, LLC (In re Ward)
264 So. 3d 52 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2018)
Wilson v. Avant
227 So. 3d 1223 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2017)
Winford v. Winford
139 So. 3d 179 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
967 So. 2d 90, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 61, 2007 WL 1098554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ta-financial-inc-v-discover-bank-ala-2007.