Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. v. State

961 So. 2d 171, 2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 22, 2007 WL 80401

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 12, 2007

Docket2050952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 961 So. 2d 171 (Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. v. State, 961 So. 2d 171, 2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 22, 2007 WL 80401 (Ala. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

On September 15, 2005, the State of Alabama filed a complaint against Mitchell Bernard Johnson and certain property, including a 1996 Ford Ranger vehicle (hereinafter “the vehicle”), seeking the forfeiture of the vehicle and the other property pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975. That complaint was served on TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.,¹ among others. On October 17, 2005, TitleMax filed an answer asserting its rights as a lienholder on the vehicle. Other parties also filed responses to the State’s complaint, but the facts pertinent to those responses are not relevant to the issue presented on appeal.

On March 27, 2006, the State moved for the entry of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, the record contains no indication that the State served TitleMax with notice of its March 27, 2006, motion for a default judgment. On March 27, 2006, the same day the State filed its motion for a default judgment, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the State.

On April 12, 2006, TitleMax filed a motion that was in substance a motion filed pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Evans v. Waddell, 689 So.2d 23, 26 (Ala.1997) (the substance of a motion governs the courts’ interpretation of that motion). In that motion, TitleMax sought to have the March 27, 2006, default judgment set aside; TitleMax argued that it had not been served with notice of the motion for a default judgment. The trial court ordered the State to respond to TitleMax’s Rule 55(c) motion, but the record on appeal does not contain any such response. The April 12, 2006, motion to set aside the default judgment was denied by operation of law, see Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., and TitleMax timely appealed.

On appeal, TitleMax argues that it was entitled, pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975, to notice of the State’s application for a default judgment. The State has filed a brief before this court in which it concedes that the trial court erred in entering the default judgment in the absence of notice to TitleMax and in failing to set that judgment aside. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CRAWLEY, P.J., and PITTMAN, MURDOCK, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

On September 15, 2005, the State of Alabama filed a complaint against Mitchell Bernard Johnson and certain property, including a 1996 Ford Ranger vehicle (hereinafter “the vehicle”), seeking the forfeiture of the vehicle and the other property pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975. That complaint was served on TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.,¹ among others. On October 17, 2005, TitleMax filed an answer asserting its rights as a lienholder on the vehicle. Other parties also filed responses to the State’s complaint, but the facts pertinent to those responses are not relevant to the issue presented on appeal.

On March 27, 2006, the State moved for the entry of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, the record contains no indication that the State served TitleMax with notice of its March 27, 2006, motion for a default judgment. On March 27, 2006, the same day the State filed its motion for a default judgment, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the State.

On April 12, 2006, TitleMax filed a motion that was in substance a motion filed pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Evans v. Waddell, 689 So.2d 23, 26 (Ala.1997) (the substance of a motion governs the courts’ interpretation of that motion). In that motion, TitleMax sought to have the March 27, 2006, default judgment set aside; TitleMax argued that it had not been served with notice of the motion for a default judgment. The trial court ordered the State to respond to TitleMax’s Rule 55(c) motion, but the record on appeal does not contain any such response. The April 12, 2006, motion to set aside the default judgment was denied by operation of law, see Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., and TitleMax timely appealed.

On appeal, TitleMax argues that it was entitled, pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975, to notice of the State’s application for a default judgment. The State has filed a brief before this court in which it concedes that the trial court erred in entering the default judgment in the absence of notice to TitleMax and in failing to set that judgment aside. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CRAWLEY, P.J., and PITTMAN, MURDOCK, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 171, 2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 22, 2007 WL 80401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titlemax-of-alabama-inc-v-state-alacivapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack