Terreka Carter v. Adlp Investments, LLC
This text of Terreka Carter v. Adlp Investments, LLC (Terreka Carter v. Adlp Investments, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: JUNE 25, 2021; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0859-MR
TERREKA CARTER APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 20-CI-001173
ADLP INVESTMENTS, LLC APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, CALDWELL, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: Terreka Carter appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of
her CR1 60.02 motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of ADLP
Investments, LLC (ADLP). She contends the circuit court erred in denying her
motions because the COVID-19 pandemic should qualify as a reason of an
1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. extraordinary nature justifying relief from a judgment entered because she did not
timely respond to the complaint. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2018, Carter entered into a “Retail Installment
Contract and Security Agreement” (Contract) with Approved Auto of America
(Approved Auto) for the purchase of a 2005 Buick Rendezvous. The Contract,
later assigned to Dixie Finance Company, gave Approved Auto a security interest
in the car and required Carter to make biweekly payments of $150 starting on
November 3, 2018. On November 2, 2018 Carter made a $100 payment; on
November 3, 2018, she made a $50 payment. She made no other payments.
According to Carter, the car had multiple problems that started after
she purchased it. She brought the problems to Approved Auto’s attention, but it
did not have the parts needed to make the repairs. Carter continued to drive the car
until about a week after she made her first payment. She then surrendered the car
to Dixie Finance Company.
Dixie Finance Company notified Carter it was required to dispose of
the car and intended to list it for public sale on December 14, 2018. Eventually,
the Contract was assigned to ADLP through a series of assignments.
ADLP filed suit against Carter on February 12, 2020. The complaint
contained allegations of breach of contract, quantum meruit-unjust enrichment, and
-2- action on account. The sheriff served the complaint and summons on Carter at her
mother’s residence on February 27, 2020.
Around that time, the country went into a self-imposed lockdown in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court-system still functioned,
albeit at limited capacity. Carter never filed an answer to ADLP’s complaint.
ADLP filed a motion for default judgment on March 30, 2020 and served the
motion on Carter. Carter still failed to respond. The circuit court entered a default
judgment on April 2, 2020.
Well over a month after receiving the default judgment, Carter hired a
lawyer and filed a motion to vacate under CR2 60.02 and CR 55.02. She cited
COVID-19 as a reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief. CR 60.02(f).
The circuit court disagreed and overruled Carter’s motion. This prompted Carter
to file a CR 59.05 motion, which was also denied by the circuit court.
This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision to grant or deny a motion under CR 60.02 or CR 59.05
rests within the trial judge’s sound discretion. See Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank
& Trust Co., 692 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Ky. App. 1985). Accordingly, we apply an
abuse of discretion standard of review to a trial court’s rulings on CR 59.05 and
2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3- CR 60.02 motions. Bowling v. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478,
483 (Ky. 2009); Bethlehem Minerals Co. v. Church & Mullins Corp., 887 S.W.2d
327, 329 (Ky. 1994).
“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Accordingly, a trial
court’s decision is affirmed unless there is a showing of some “flagrant miscarriage
of justice[.]” Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Ky. 1983).
ANALYSIS
A trial court may relieve a party from a final judgment upon a
showing of a “reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief.” CR 60.02(f).
This rule “functions to address significant defects in the trial proceedings.”
Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738, 739 (Ky. App. 2014) (citation
omitted). To succeed on a claim under CR 60.02(f), “the movant must specifically
present facts which render the original trial tantamount to none at all.” Foley v.
Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Ky. 2014) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Additionally, CR 55.02 provides a mechanism authorizing a trial court
to set aside a default judgment in accordance with CR 60.02 for “good cause
shown[.]” Kentucky courts have interpreted the “good cause” standard under CR
-4- 55.02 as requiring “the moving party to make a timely showing of the
circumstances under which the default judgment was procured. Specifically, the
moving party must show: (1) a valid excuse for the default; (2) a meritorious
defense to the claim; and (3) absence of prejudice to the non-defaulting party.”
Sunrise Turquoise, Inc. v. Chem. Design Co., 899 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky. App.
1995) (citing Perry v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 812 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Ky. App.
1991)). “Absent a showing of all three elements, the default judgment will not be
set aside.” Sunrise, 899 S.W.2d at 859. “Although default judgments are not
favored, trial courts possess broad discretion in considering motions to set them
aside and we will not disturb the exercise of that discretion absent abuse.” Howard
v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Ky. App. 1988) (citing Kidd v. B. Perini &
Sons, 313 Ky. 727, 233 S.W.2d 255 (1950)); PNC Bank, N.A. v. Citizens Bank of
Northern Kentucky, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 527, 530-31 (Ky. App. 2003).
Carter failed to satisfy the first element. A pandemic cannot serve, in
and of itself, as a valid excuse for defaulting on a claim, especially when there is
no allegation the defaulter was medically or otherwise personally affected by the
disease. Carter was served with a complaint and summons with directions when to
answer. Counsel properly served the default judgment motion upon her stating
when she was to respond. A party’s foreboding response to general information is
not a valid excuse for disregarding specific information identifying a specific
-5- responsibility, with specific consequences. Furthermore, mere carelessness on a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Terreka Carter v. Adlp Investments, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terreka-carter-v-adlp-investments-llc-kyctapp-2021.