Kathleen Ann Klaeser v. Osborne Milton, Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/8/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080722 Kathleen Ann K l a e s e r v. Osborne M i l t o n , J r . Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-00-486.05) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Kathleen Court's Ann K l a e s e r appeals from t h e Madison Circuit d e n i a l o f h e r m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment i n f a v o r o f Osborne M i l t o n , J r . We a f f i r m . 2080722 Facts Milton and P r o c e d u r a l and K l a e s e r were divorced History i n 2000. The d i v o r c e judgment, i n p a r t , awarded K l a e s e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f the parties' younger child ("the c h i l d " ) . 2006, M i l t o n p e t i t i o n e d t h e t r i a l awarding M i l t o n primary process server to serve however, K l a e s e r was n o t p r e s e n t . service with the c h i l d , did court t o modify custody p h y s i c a l custody attempted On November 28, of the c h i l d . Klaeser at her The p r o c e s s On 2 complaint, September who was t h e n 15 y e a r s adding 1 1 , 2007, a claim Milton requesting that modify the post minority-educational-support parties' divorce Klaeser other home; old. filed 1 Klaeser s e v e r a l days an amended the t r i a l court p r o v i s i o n i n the judgment. d i d n o t answer responsive The server l e f t the n o t r e c e i v e t h e papers from t h e c h i l d u n t i l later. by Milton's pleading. On petition November 2, or f i l e any 2007, Milton a p p l i e d t o t h e c l e r k f o r e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t judgment against K l a e s e r a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was 15 y e a r s o l d ; M i l t o n a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was a c t u a l l y 16 y e a r s o l d . 1 I t i s u n c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d whether K l a e s e r d i d not r e t u r n home f o r s e v e r a l d a y s o r w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d simply n e g l e c t e d t o i n f o r m K l a e s e r o f t h e papers l e f t by t h e process server. 2 2 2080722 Klaeser. for M i l t o n i n c l u d e d an a f f i d a v i t d e f a u l t ; however, he failed with h i sapplication to state i n his affidavit w h e t h e r K l a e s e r was i n a c t i v e m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . colonel i n the United States 2007, K l a e s e r was p l a c e d unclear Army R e s e r v e , active military a n d , on May 17, i n active military w h e t h e r M i l t o n knew t h a t K l a e s e r service. The t r i a l service. a letter court was i n a c t i v e m i l i t a r y to the t r i a l I ti s had been p l a c e d i n entered j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t K l a e s e r on F e b r u a r y 29, 2008. Klaeser mailed Klaeser i s a a default I n May 2008, c o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t she s e r v i c e and t h e r e f o r e covered by the S e r v i c e m e m b e r s C i v i l R e l i e f A c t o f 2003, c o d i f i e d a t 50 App. U.S.C. § 501 e t s e q . ("the A c t " ) . mailed a letter c h i l d support court and, to the t r i a l January 5, on K l a e s e r ' s 2009, K l a e s e r was r e p r e s e n t e d On court Klaeser c o n t e s t i n g t h e amount o f awarded t o M i l t o n i n t h e d e f a u l t judgment. held a hearing on I n November 2008, January 19, "contest" denied by counsel 2009, The o f t h e judgment her request for relief. at the hearing. Klaeser moved the t r i a l court p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h e A c t t o s e t aside that t h e d e f a u l t judgment. the d e f a u l t judgment Klaeser was 3 void a l l e g e d i n her motion for insufficiency of 2080722 service o f process entered i n contravention trial and t h a t t h e d e f a u l t judgment had been of the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t . c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g and, i n a d e t a i l e d w r i t t e n denied Klaeser's motion. Klaeser timely appealed The order, to this court. Issues K l a e s e r r a i s e s two i s s u e s i n h e r a p p e a l : trial court e r r e d when i t d e t e r m i n e d (1) w h e t h e r t h e that Klaeser had been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d ; a n d (2) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t determined entitled that Klaeser had n o t demonstrated that she was t o have t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s e t a s i d e p u r s u a n t t o the p r o v i s i o n s o f the A c t . Standard o f Review We a p p l y a de novo s t a n d a r d ruling on a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) o f review to a t r i a l motion. "'"When t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t , as u n d e r R u l e 60(b) ( 4 ) , d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f t h e j u d g m e n t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , i t must be s e t a s i d e . A j u d g m e n t i s void only i f the court rendering i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter or o f the p a r t i e s , or i f i t acted i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . " ' " 4 court's 2080722 Russell Coal Co. v. Smith, 845 So. 2d 781, 783 (Ala. 2002)(quoting N o r t h b r o o k Indem. Co. v. W e s t g a t e , L t d . , 769 2d (Ala. 2000)(quoting 890, 893 in turn A d m i n . , I n c . v. P a l o m a r I n s . C o r p . , 590 Insurance So. 2d 209, So. Mgmt. 212 & (Ala. 1991))). The and, Act "places i n determining upon t h e trial judge a wide discretion; whether a s e r v i c e [member] i s e n t i t l e d r e l i e f , e a c h c a s e must s t a n d upon i t s own m e r i t s . " Brown Ins. 24 Co. (1945). aside v. King, The trial the 247 315, judgment because i t of the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t o n l y i f the t r i a l So. 2d 219, was entered will be court exceeded t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . R i l e y v. S t a t e ex r e l . App. 311, Serv. c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of K l a e s e r ' s motion to default contravention Ala. W h i t e , 563 So. 2d 1039, 1040 to 222 set in reversed See, e.g., (Ala. Civ. 1990). Analysis I. K l a e s e r argues t h a t the t r i a l her Rule 60(b)(4) o f s u i t a b l e age c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d m o t i o n b e c a u s e , she and s a y s , t h e c h i l d was d i s c r e t i o n to accept 5 not substituted service 2080722 of process for Klaeser. Thus, K l a e s e r argues t h a t s e r v i c e o f 3 p r o c e s s was i n s u f f i c i e n t , r e n d e r i n g t h e j u d g m e n t v o i d f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l A jurisdiction. defense alleging a lack of personal because of i n s u f f i c i e n c y of s e r v i c e o f process, jurisdiction however, can be w a i v e d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t s h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f t o t h e jurisdiction Civ. of court. See R u l e 1 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. P. ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a d e f e n s e o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f s e r v i c e process motion, i s waived pleadings i f i t i s not included responsive a pleading). its of the t r i a l pleading, t o Milton's p e t i t i o n before filed appeared. amended on a "contest" her the t r i a l However, a f t e r responsive court entered t h e d e f a u l t judgment, c h a l l e n g i n g t h e amount o f income w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r e d by t h a t judgment. hearing an 12 I n t h i s case, K l a e s e r d i d n o t f i l e any r e s p o n s i v e d e f a u l t judgment. Klaeser or i n a Rule "contest," at The t r i a l which court held a Klaeser's attorney K l a e s e r d i d n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r p r o c e s s was R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on an i n d i v i d u a l , o t h e r t h a n a m i n o r o r an i n c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n , s h a l l be made "by s e r v i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l o r b y l e a v i n g a c o p y o f t h e summons a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s d w e l l i n g house o r u s u a l p l a c e o f adobe w i t h some p e r s o n o f s u i t a b l e age a n d d i s c r e t i o n t h e n residing therein " 3 6 2080722 i n s u f f i c i e n t i n h e r l e t t e r c o n t e s t i n g t h e amount o f t h e income withholding, nor d i d her attorney raise the issue when he appeared a t t h e hearing. I n K i n g v i s i o n P a y - P e r - V i e w , L t d . v . A y e r s , 886 So. 2d 45, 53 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t q u o t e d approvingly f r o m L o n n i n g v . L o n n i n g , 199 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1 9 7 2 ) , f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t : "'The r u l e s w h i c h g o v e r n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s c a s e a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . The filing of a pleading i s a general appearance. Rule 65(c), Rules o f C i v i l Procedure. J u r i s d i c t i o n of the person i n a c i v i l c a s e may be a c q u i r e d b y s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e i n t h e manner a n d f o r m p r e s c r i b e d b y law, o r by d e f e n d a n t ' s g e n e r a l appearance. Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic A s s o c i a t i o n , 258 Iowa 2 8 5 , 138 N.W.2d 914 (19 6 5 ) ; Emery T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company v . Baker, 257 Iowa 1260, 136 N.W.2d 529 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; B a k e r v . B a k e r , [248 Iowa 361, 81 N.W.2d 1 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ] . A g e n e r a l appearance i s a w a i v e r o f n o t i c e and i f a p a r t y appears i n p e r s o n o r b y a t t o r n e y he s u b m i t s h i m s e l f t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . Humboldt L i v e s t o c k A u c t i o n , I n c . v. B & H C a t t l e Co., 261 Iowa 419, 155 N.W.2d 478 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; O'Connor v . Y o u n g b l a d e , 250 Iowa 808, 96 N.W.2d 457 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . He may n o t t h e r e a f t e r avoid that jurisdiction by special a p p e a r a n c e . G a r d n e r v . B e c k , 195 Iowa 62, 189 N.W. 962 (1922); 5 Am.Jur.2d, A p p e a r a n c e § 16, p p . 491-92; 6 C . J . S . , A p p e a r a n c e s § 24, p. 6 7 . ' " 7 2080722 This that hold statement i s i n accord w i t h e a r l i e r that a defendant waives Alabama the defense cases of improper s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s i f t h a t d e f e n d a n t does n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e in h i s or her f i r s t d e f a u l t judgment. appearance following the entry of a I n P r i d g e n v . Head, 282 A l a . 193, 198, 210 So. 2d 426, 430 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t stated: " I n A e t n a I n s . Co. v . E a r n e s t , 215 A l a . 557, 112 So. 145 [ ( 1 9 2 7 ) ] , [ t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ] q u o t e d a p p r o v i n g l y f r o m 4 C o r p u s J u r i s , A p p e a r a n c e s , § 64, p. 1364, as f o l l o w s : "'Where a j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n r e n d e r e d by t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e person, a g e n e r a l appearance a f t e r such judgment w a i v e s a l l objection to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court over the person. Thus a g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e b y d e f e n d a n t a f t e r f i n a l judgment w a i v e s any and a l l d e f e c t s and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s a n d r e t u r n , j u s t as f u l l y as i t does where s u c h a p p e a r a n c e i s entered b e f o r e f i n a l judgment.' " I n t h e A e t n a I n s . Co. c a s e , s u p r a , [ t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ] p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i n t h e same t e x t (§ 65, p. 1365) many cases were cited to the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t : 'As t o t h e i m m e d i a t e p a r t i e s t o the action, a g e n e r a l appearance validates a j u d g m e n t t h a t was t h e r e t o f o r e a b s o l u t e l y v o i d f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " In this case, Klaeser appeared i n the action c o n t e s t e d t h e m e r i t s o f t h e d e f a u l t judgment. the when she By a p p e a r i n g i n action, Klaeser submitted herself to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of 8 2080722 the t r i a l c o u r t . K l a e s e r s h o u l d have b r o u g h t any c h a l l e n g e the t r i a l c o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over her at t h a t Because K l a e s e r f a i l e d to r a i s e the defense of of s e r v i c e of process entry of the Therefore, default i n her first judgment, to time. insufficiency appearance f o l l o w i n g the she waived that defense. t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f K l a e s e r ' s R u l e 60(b) (4) m o t i o n i s due t o be affirmed. II. Klaeser next argues t h a t the denied her request she argues, the trial court t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment because, trial court entered i t s d e f a u l t judgment i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t . of the Act e r r e d when i t Section 521(b)(1) provides: "In any a c t i o n or proceeding covered by this s e c t i o n , the c o u r t , b e f o r e e n t e r i n g judgment f o r the p l a i n t i f f , s h a l l r e q u i r e the p l a i n t i f f to f i l e w i t h t h e c o u r t an a f f i d a v i t -¬ "(A) s t a t i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t is in military service and showing necessary f a c t s to support the a f f i d a v i t ; or "(B) i f the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant i s in military service, stating that the p l a i n t i f f i s unable to determine whether or not the defendant i s i n m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . " 9 2080722 The submission of the a f f i d a v i t i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o the entry of a default not submit default judgment. such an a f f i d a v i t judgment. provisions Milton Thus, void. a t the time Klaeser is i n t h e A c t were n o t f o l l o w e d . does n o t mandate r e v e r s a l . absence does n o t d i s p u t e of the required Default affidavit t h a t he d i d he a p p l i e d correct for a that However, t h a t judgments o b t a i n e d are merely the error i n the voidable, not Krumme v . Krumme, 6 K a n . App. 2d 939, 943, 636 P.2d 814, 815 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; D a v i d s o n v . G e n e r a l F i n . C o r p . , 295 F. Supp. 878, 881 (N.D. Ga. 1 9 6 8 ) ; R e n t f r o w v . W i l s o n , 213 A . 2 d 295, 296 (D.C. 1 9 6 5 ) ; Thompson v . Lowman, 108 O h i o App. 453, 456, 155 N.E.2d 258, 261 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; a n d P e o p l e v . V o g e l , 798, 299 P.2d 850 (1956). A s e r v i c e m e m b e r who h a s h a d a d e f a u l t against 46 C a l . 2d h i m o r h e r may s e e k t o s e t a s i d e judgment the default entered judgment by c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 50 App. U.S.C. § 5 2 1 ( g ) . First, Act days t h e s e r v i c e m e m b e r must f i l e during after the servicemember's m i l i t a r y the servicemember's military service. two an a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r t h e termination In t h i s case, Klaeser d a y s b e f o r e s h e was r e l e a s e d 10 s e r v i c e o r w i t h i n 90 or release from f i l e d her a p p l i c a t i o n from a c t i v e duty. Thus, h e r 2080722 m o t i o n was or she timely. was N e x t , t h e s e r v i c e m e m b e r must show t h a t " m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d by reason of s e r v i c e i n m a k i n g a d e f e n s e t o t h e a c t i o n " and that he military t h a t he o r she has a " m e r i t o r i o u s o r l e g a l d e f e n s e t o t h e a c t i o n o r some p a r t of i t . " 50 App. a l l e g e d i n her U.S.C. §§ 521(g)(1)(A) and a f f i d a v i t t h a t her m i l i t a r y (B). Klaeser service " m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d [her] a b i l i t y t o f o r m u l a t e and present a defense h e r e i n , since i t i n t e r f e r e d w i t h [her] o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s u l t w i t h c o u n s e l o f [her] choosing, t o s e l e c t and r e t a i n an a t t o r n e y whom [she] deemed t o be capable of defending [her] i n t e r e s t s w i t h i n the f o r e g o i n g matter, to a c t i v e l y c o m m u n i c a t e and c o n s u l t w i t h him o r h e r i n t h e p l a n n i n g o f [her] c a s e , and t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t i n an e f f o r t t o p r e s e n t [her] d e f e n s e s and counterclaims herein." However, K l a e s e r action notified during of does n o t the the five action e x p l a i n why months and the she between date d i d not the she date entered take any she was active military service. "The p u r p o s e o f t h e S o l d i e r s ' and S a i l o r s ' Civil R e l i e f A c t [ ] was to p r o t e c t persons i n m i l i t a r y service from having default judgments entered w i t h o u t t h e i r knowledge, not t o p r e v e n t a judgment by d e f a u l t f r o m b e i n g e n t e r e d a g a i n s t s u c h p e r s o n , 4 T h e S o l d i e r s ' and S a i l o r s ' C i v i l R e l i e f A c t o f 1940 was t h e f o r e r u n n e r t o t h e S e r v i c e m e m b e r s C i v i l R e l i e f A c t o f 2003. The r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e two a c t s are s u b s t a n t i v e l y similar. 4 11 2080722 where t h a t p e r s o n was f u l l y i n f o r m e d o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n and had t h e t i m e and o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r and d e f e n d h i m s e l f o r o t h e r w i s e p r o t e c t h i s rights." Wilson Mar v. B u t l e r , 584 v. La Mar, (1973), This and 2d 414, 19 A r i z . App. 128, 417 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 1 ) ( c i t i n g La 130-31, 505 B u r g e s s v. B u r g e s s , 234 P.2d 566, N.Y.S.2d 87, 89 568-69 (1962)). s t a t e m e n t i s i n a c c o r d w i t h Alabama c a s e l a w r e q u i r i n g a d e f e n d a n t who to So. Rule seeks t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment p u r s u a n t 60(b), adequately Lumber Co., Ala. protected 561 So. R. Civ. P., h i s or her 2d 1086, 1091 to show rights. See that he or DaLee v. she Crosby ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ( " ' I t i s the duty o f e v e r y p a r t y d e s i r i n g t o r e s i s t an a c t i o n o r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a j u d i c i a l proceeding retain counsel or to t o t a k e t i m e l y and act u n d e s i r a b l e judgment. in Unless his own adequate steps person i n arranging shows t h a t he has e x e r c i s e d s u c h r e a s o n a b l e to avoid motion denied.'" to set (quoting I n c . , 248 A l a . 297, had aside a McDavid 301, judgment v. 27 So. United 2d 499, o v e r f i v e months f r o m t h e t i m e she until she was placed for he d i l i g e n c e as a man should (1946))). service. be Agencies, Klaeser l e a r n e d of the in active military 12 default business, Mercantile 503 an f o r h i s defense o f o r d i n a r y p r u d e n c e u s u a l l y b e s t o w s upon i m p o r t a n t his to action There i s 2080722 nothing action i n the during protect her record that indicating time rights. to that Klaeser retain counsel Consequently, or undertook to any otherwise Klaeser has not demonstrated t h a t her m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d her ability to defend the a c t i o n . Conclusion Because K l a e s e r waived her process t h a t the argument, trial and court because insufficiency-of-service-ofKlaeser has not demonstrated e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e n i e d h e r m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t was entered i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t , the t r i a l court's judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 13 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.