Jerry & John Woods Construction, Inc. v. New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church (Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court: CV-21-900040).

REL: December 15, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
_________________________

CL-2023-0166
_________________________

Jerry & John Woods Construction, Inc.

v.

New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church

Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court
(CV-21-900040)

EDWARDS, Judge.

Jerry & John Woods Construction, Inc. ("Woods Construction"),

appeals from a judgment entered by the Dallas Circuit Court ("the trial

court") in favor of New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church ("New Bethel")
CL-2023-0166

and against Woods Construction on February 8, 2023.1 We affirm the

judgment.

On February 22, 2021, Woods Construction filed a complaint in the

trial court against New Bethel. Woods Construction alleged that New

Bethel had breached a contract that it had entered into with Woods

Construction for asphalt paving. In the alternative, Woods Construction

alleged that New Bethel had been unjustly enriched because Wood's

Construction had allegedly completed its work and had not been paid.

Woods Construction requested "compensatory damages in an amount to

be determined by the [trial court], plus costs, along with such other,

further, and different relief to which [Woods Construction] may be

entitled." Woods Construction requested service of process "by sheriff."

On June 7, 2021, Woods Construction, through its president, Jerry

Woods, filed an application and affidavit for entry of default using

Alabama Unified Judicial System Form C-25. The application for entry

of default averred, among other things, that more than 31 days had

1New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church is located in Orrville. It is
sometimes referred to in the pleadings or motions in the record as New
Bethal, New Bethel, or New Bethel Baptist Church.
2
CL-2023-0166

elapsed since New Bethel had been served with the summons and

complaint on April 7, 2021, and that New Bethel had not filed an answer

and had failed to defend against Woods Construction's complaint.2 The

application for entry of default requested that the trial-court clerk enter

default against New Bethel based on its failure "to plead, answer, or

otherwise defend." Contemporaneously with the filing of the application

for entry of default, Woods Construction also filed an Alabama Unified

Judicial System "Civil Motion Cover Sheet" on which it checked the box

indicating that it was filing of a motion for a default judgment (although

no separate motion appears to have been filed), along with the $50 fee

required for filing such motion, and an affidavit from Jerry Woods

2Entries on the case-action-summary sheet in the State Judicial
Information System state that, on February 22, 2021, "Sheriff issued:
2/22/2021 to [New Bethel]" and that, on March 30, 2021, "reissue of
certified ma[il] on 3/30/2021 for [New Bethel]." Entries in that system
for April 12, 2021, state "service of certified mai[l] on 04/05/2021" for New
Bethel and "service return." Further entries on May 11, 2021, state
"service of served person on 04/07/2021 for [New Bethel]" and "service
return." Entries on May 27, 2021, state "alias summons e-filed," reissue
of process serv on 05/27/2021 for [New Bethel]," and "alias summons --
summons." Also, entries on June 3, 2021, state "return on service --
served e-filed," "service of served person on 05/28/2021 for [New Bethel],"
and "service return."
3
CL-2023-0166

averring the purported bases for New Bethel's liability to Woods

Construction and requesting compensatory damages for New Bethel's

"failure to abide by its contractual obligations" in the amount of $24,200

($15,000 plus $9,400 for additional asphalt) and $2,000 for attorney fees.

There was an area on the application for entry of default for the

trial-court clerk to enter default but that area contains no entry or

signature by the clerk. Nor was an "entry of default" made electronically

by the trial-court clerk in the State Judicial Information System ("SJIS").

See Rule 55(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.3 Entries on the case-action-summary sheet

in SJIS state, on June 7, 2021, "default judgment filed" by Woods

Construction's attorney; on June 8, 2021, "default judgment docketed";

on June 9, 2021, "default judgment … set for 08/23/2021"; and on June

10, 2021 "for: hearing on 08/23/2021." An August 18, 2021, entry on the

3Rule 55(a) states that, "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as
provided by these Rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or
otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default. The clerk's entry of
default may be made electronically."

4
CL-2023-0166

case-action-summary sheet in SJIS states that the "default hearing"

would be a virtual hearing.

A virtual hearing was held on August 23, 2021, and an entry on the

case-action-summary sheet in SJIS indicates that Woods Construction

filed exhibits for that hearing. The record on appeal, however, includes

no transcript or exhibits regarding that hearing. After the hearing, the

trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Woods Construction

("the August 2021 judgment").4 See Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. The

August 2021 judgment stated:

4An entry of default is a separate matter from the entry of a default

judgment. See Graham v. University Credit Union, 411 So. 2d 144, 148
(Ala. Civ. App. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Keith, 771
So. 2d 1018 (Ala. 1998); see also Griffin v. Blackwell, 57 So. 3d 161, 163-
64 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). Generally, "a movant is not entitled to a default
judgment as a matter of right," and "it is well settled that an entry of a
default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., is a matter
entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court." City of Gulf Shores
v. Harbert Int'l, 608 So. 2d 348, 357-58 (Ala. 1992). Rule 55(b) discusses
the conditions under which a default judgment may be entered by the
clerk or by the court after an entry of default, and it has been held that,
before a default judgment properly can be entered, "there must be an
entry of default as provided by [R]ule 55(a)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]" See
Graham, 411 So. 2d at 144. Nevertheless, the failure to make an entry
of default constitutes only reversible legal error and does not "render[]
the subsequent [default] judgment void." Graham, 411 So. 2d at 148.
5
CL-2023-0166

"THIS CAUSE came for default hearing on the 23rd day
of August 2021 and was submitted to the Court for final order
upon the pleadings on record in this cause. [Woods
Construction] … was represented by and through [its]
attorney of record, James Derrell Fancher. [New Bethel]
failed to appear in this matter. The Court, having heard the
issues presented by counsel, is of the opinion the following
order should be entered. Accordingly, it is

"ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court:

"1. [Woods Construction] is hereby awarded
$18,400.00 for the unpaid balance of the contract
and the additional materials used on the job site,
for which execution may issue without waiver of
exemption;

"2. That the costs of this action are taxed
against [Woods Construction] for which execution
may issue without waiver of exemption;

"3. Any and all other relief requested but not
addressed specifically by this Order is hereby
denied."

(Capitalization in original.)

On August 31, 2021, an undated letter from Pastor Rufus King, Jr.,

and Deacon Edward Ellis, who was the Chairman of New Bethel's board

of deacons, that was addressed to the trial-court clerk was filed in the

trial court. The August 2021 letter was on New Bethel's letterhead and

6
CL-2023-0166

requested "a new virtual hearing" in Woods Construction's action against

New Bethel. The letter continued:

"Reason for new hearing request is that we were never given
notice of the impending court date.

"A default judgment was entered against [New Bethel] even
though we received no notice of the scheduled court date, time,
place or mode for attending such court hearing.

"Because of COVID-19, the church is not meeting in person.

"The default letter was received on the 27th of August by Mrs.
Viola Fuller, and was addressed to [New Bethel] pro se.

"Will you please speak to Judge [Marvin W.] Wiggins5 on our
behalf and request that he grant [New Bethel] a new hearing.
We have evidence to show that [Woods Construction] did not
complete the work agreed upon."

The fact that New Bethel could not have appeared pro se is discussed,

infra. The trial court treated the August 2021 letter as a motion to set

aside the August 2021 judgment, see Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., and, on

September 13, 2021, an entry was made setting that motion for a hearing

to be held on October 7, 2021.

5Judge Marvin W. Wiggins presided over the case.

7
CL-2023-0166

On October 7, 2021, Woods Construction filed an "Opposition to

[New Bethel's] Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment." Woods

Construction argued that New Bethel had failed to file an answer and

that its motion "failed to include crucial facts," failed to satisfy the

requirements for setting aside a default judgment as discussed in

Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc., 524 So. 2d 600

(Ala. 1988), and failed to "ask[] [that] the Default be set aside."

Thereafter, the trial court held the hearing scheduled for that day. New

Bethel was not represented by counsel at that hearing. Instead, King

and Ellis were present, and King argued to the trial court that "the work

that we contracted to have done by [Woods Construction] was totally

inadequate." The following colloquy then occurred between King and the

trial court:

"The Court: … [W]as there any particular reason why
you-all did not answer or respond to the complaint?

"Mr. King: Yes. We were not notified of the initial court
hearing, court date. It's not as if they did not have my address
or anything, because … they sent a summon deliverer out to
my home. So they had my address, and they had my phone
number. But we were not properly notified.

8
CL-2023-0166

"The Court: Y'all had no notice of the last hearing we
had?

"Mr. King: No notice whatsoever. We received
something concerning the default judgment, however.

"The Court: Did you receive a copy of the summons and
complaint that was asking you to file a response within a
certain number of days?

"Mr. King: No. We just received notice of the fact that
a default judgment had been entered against [New Bethel]."

The trial court then inquired of counsel for Woods Construction, who

stated:

"I think the pastor is a little confused. They were served
properly by certified mail to the church address, and then I
didn't realize that certification -- that had already occurred.
And then the pastor just stated that we sent a process server
out to his home with notification, so that was the summons
and complaint that the Court was referring to. So they were
served twice.

"And in response, the Court had heard the arguments
and stuff at the default hearing, but the problem with the
letter is -- and, Judge, I don't mean to -- I know they're not
learned in the law. But there are certain things that are
established in law that we have to do in order to set aside
judgments, and one of those is the Kirtland factors …."

Counsel for Woods Construction then discussed Kirtland, and, as to the

third of the Kirtland factors, i.e., "whether the default judgment was a

9
CL-2023-0166

result of the defendant's own culpable conduct," 524 So. 2d at 605, counsel

argued:

"In that service packet, there's … clear warnings that the
default has to be answered within 30 days or a default
judgment can be entered against you. Now, he wouldn't have
got notice, I don't believe … of the default proceedings because
he didn't participate at all in the court proceedings to begin
with. So, therefore, he's not due that notice where he'd have
two or three days. …

"So he's not due that notice of the default proceedings so
he could be present because he hasn't participated. If he
would have filed an answer, he was absolutely due some
notice. Again, I hate that being that they're not learned in the
law, but that's what the law says. And to date, they still
haven't filed an answer to cure the defect.

"And so we're here on a motion to set aside default that
doesn't meet the three-pronged test, and they haven't cured
any defects to move forward. So we would ask that the Court
deny it, unfortunately, and let the judgment stand."

The trial court then turned to King and the colloquy continued between

them and also included Ellis:

"Mr. King: As I understand it, he's saying that I
received a notarized letter to the effect that they would have
a court hearing.

"The Court: A process server brought you a copy of the
summons and complaint to your house. You had 30 days to
file a response or something to that.

10
CL-2023-0166

"Mr. King: I need to get that and read that. I don't
remember. I don't recall seeing a date -- a hearing date on
that summons.

"The Court: It wasn't a hearing date. It was just a notice
of the complaint. You have 30 days to respond to it.

"Mr. Ellis: I think -- I think the -- we didn't -- I don't
know if we got a -- the mail has not been coming the to the
proper location that's needed. It's my understanding that we
was closed due to the coronavirus there. The church is still
closed down there. I'm not giving an excuse or anything, but
there's no mail that comes down there. And we have not been
receiving the proper mail from this hearing at all there. And
when we do receive something -- it's like something showed
up at the pastor's house there, Your Honor, and we -- we try
to do our best to, you know, follow procedures. And we didn't
know what to do, and we -- I think we responded back with
the possible letter responding back. We never did get any --
anything, you know, as far as in the pastor's hands or the
deacon's hands there to sign. You know, no none signed
anything that I know of. And the -- you know, whether we
was going to look at calling down to the courthouse, which we
did, and, you know, we get things that's like -- I think it was,
like, seven days after this last court, I think. I think it came
after this last court that we got something, and we didn't
know anything before this last court, prior to this suit. We
didn't know anything until after that -- two days -- three days
after that -- five days, I think, after that, we got a letter in the
mail there, and those are the only things that we're aware of.
And I can't, you know, recall anybody signing anything, you
know, as far as receiving anything from the court there. And

11
CL-2023-0166

if we had've gotten it, we would have responded promptly
there, and we did not get anything that I know of there." 6

The trial court then requested that King and Ellis provide their

respective mailing addresses, and they did so. The trial court asked

counsel for Woods Construction if he "ha[d] anything else," and counsel

responded: "Judge, just one last thing. The church signed for the original

complaint on April 12th, '21. It was addressed certified mail to the

church, and the church signed for it. It's in the official court record on

April 12th, '21." Counsel further informed the trial court that the

signature on the certified-mail receipt was by "A. Allen," and King

confirmed that "we have an A. Allen." It was undisputed that the address

on that return receipt was the address for New Bethel. The hearing

closed with the trial court stating: "Well, I will certainly look at it and

get y'all an order. And I'll get the clerk's office to add you-all's names and

addresses on the file. If you-all get a lawyer or another attorney, make

sure he or she enters a notice of appearance for you-all." 7

6Neither King nor Ellis was under oath.

7See Rule 4(c)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., discussing service on entities, and

Rule 4(i)(2)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., which states that an "agent's authority [to
12
CL-2023-0166

We find concerning the discussions at the October 2021 hearing,

particularly in light of the comments made by the trial court and counsel

for Woods Construction that reflect their knowledge that King and Ellis

were not attorneys. It has been held that a non-attorney may file a

document that constitutes an appearance of a legal entity with which he

or she is associated for purposes of Rule 55(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., see

Progress Indus., Inc. v. Wilson, 52 So. 3d 500, 508 (Ala. 2010), but no such

notice of appearance was filed before the entry of the default judgment in

the present case.8 However, aside from the issue whether a non-attorney

can satisfy that notice-of-appearance requirement, such a non-attorney

cannot file pleadings or motions or make legal arguments for such legal

entity in circuit court. See Wilson, 52 So. 3d at 507-08 (describing such

accept service by certified mail] shall be conclusively established when
the addressee acknowledges actual receipt of the summons and
complaint."

8When a party has not made an appearance, the three-day notice

requirement of Rule 55(b)(2) does not apply, and a trial court exceeds its
discretion by granting a motion to set aside the default judgment based
on lack of such notice. See Ex parte Phillips, 900 So. 2d 412, 418 (Ala.
2004); see also Western Union Tele. Co. v. Crowder, 547 So. 2d 876, 879
(Ala. 1989).
13
CL-2023-0166

filing of pleadings as a nullity); see also Ex parte Living by Faith

Christian Church, 360 So. 3d 340, 342 (Ala. 2021); Pipes v. Weyerhaeuser

Co., 328 So. 3d 282, 285 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020) ("The notice of appeal that

Annette [Pipes] filed in this case is … a nullity. As a result, in essence,

no notice of appeal was filed; therefore, the jurisdiction of this court was

not invoked, and this appeal must be dismissed."); Ala. Code 1975, § 34-

3-6(b) (discussing what constitutes the practice of law in relation to the

unauthorized practice of law). Thus, the August 2021 letter and the

hearing conducted by the trial court in October 2021 were nullities.

Because we have concluded that the August 2021 letter, which the

trial court treated as a motion to set aside the August 2021 judgment,

was a nullity, the trial court had 30 days from the entry of the August

2021 judgment to set aside that judgment on its own motion pursuant to

Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. The trial court entered no such order; thus, the

August 2021 judgment became final for purposes of appeal. New Bethel

did not file a notice of appeal directed to the August 2021 judgment.

Instead, New Bethel retained legal counsel at some point and, on

December 24, 2021, counsel for New Bethel filed a motion to set aside the

14
CL-2023-0166

August 2021 judgment, citing Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., but no specific

subparagraph of that Rule, and Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. 9 As to the

latter, that motion was untimely, see id., but we presume that New

Bethel was raising Rule 55(c) for purposes of arguing that, in addition to

satisfying the requirements of one of the threshold subparagraphs of

Rule 60(b), it had also satisfied the Kirtland factors to the extent that

those requirements were pertinent, in order to set aside the August 2021

judgment.10 In New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion, it argued that it had

9On December 1, 2021, Woods Construction filed in the trial court

an Alabama Unified Judicial System Form C-21 "Process of
Garnishment" in an attempt to enforce the August 2021 judgment. The
trial court eventually entered an order staying that proceeding.

10Generally, "in order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b), the
defaulting party must not only show the existence of a meritorious
defense, but also must demonstrate the ground under Rule 60(b)
justifying relief from the final judgment." DaLee v. Crosby Lumber Co.,
561 So. 2d 1086, 1091 (Ala. 1990). Whether the Kirtland factors must be
addressed as part of a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) depends on the
grounds for that motion. For example, under Rule 60(b)(1), a party must
satisfy both that threshold subparagraph and the Kirtland factors. See
Farrag v. Thomas, [Ms. 1200541, Feb. 17, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.
2023) ("[B]ecause the trial court concluded that Dr. Farrag had not
demonstrated that his failure to defend the malpractice action was due
to excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] it was not
necessary for the trial court to also weigh the Kirtland factors."). On the
other hand, if a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4), it is unnecessary to
15
CL-2023-0166

satisfied the Kirtland factors; that it had not been served with the

application for entry of default (no argument was made that New Bethel

had not been served with the summons and complaint -- indeed New

Bethel stated that its "failure to respond to the complaint resulted from

[its] not [being] properly served with the default application"); and that

it would have contested the default-judgment proceeding had it been

served with the application for entry of default or received notice that

Woods Construction was seeking a default judgment -- no reference was

made to the August 2021 letter or to the October 2021 hearing.11

address the Kirtland factors. See Pharo v. Pharo, 199 So. 3d 93, 95 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2015) ("[B]ecause the wife challenges the husband's ability to
have effected service by publication and therefore contends that the
divorce judgment is void because her due-process rights were violated
when the trial court entered a judgment without having obtained
personal jurisdiction over her, she seeks relief from the default judgment
under Rule 60(b)(4), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] and, thus, an examination of the
Kirtland factors is unnecessary in this case." (footnote omitted)).

11As noted above, New Bethel's Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion

made no reference to a specific subparagraph of Rule 60(b). "[A] specific
citation like that is not necessary if the applicable [Rule 60(b)] ground
can be discerned from the motion itself." Penrose v. Garcia, [Ms. SC-
2022-0871, June 16, 2023] __ So. 3d __, __ (Ala. 2023). Under the
circumstances, particularly New Bethel's contention that a purported
notice error as to the application for entry of default was the basis for its
motion, we construe that motion as being made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)
16
CL-2023-0166

Attached to the Rule 60(b) motion was an unsworn affidavit from King,

as pastor of New Bethel. 12 King averred, in part:

on the ground of lack of due process. See Rule 5(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("No
service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except
that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them
shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons
in Rule 4[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]").

We further note that, in its appellate brief, New Bethel raises, for
the first time, the issue of personal jurisdiction and argues that it had
not been properly served with the summons and complaint. Because no
mention was made of a lack of service of the summons and complaint in
the Rule 60(b) motion and because Woods Construction had the burden
of proving proper service if it had been raised and did not construe the
60(b) motion as attacking service of process, see discussion, infra, we
cannot construe the Rule 60(b) motion as having been based on lack of
proper service. See Truss v. Chappell, 4 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Ala. 2008)
("When service of process is contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing proper service of process."). Accordingly, the purported lack
of proper service of process cannot be considered as an alternative basis
for affirmance of the order granting the Rule 60(b) motion in the present
case. See discussion, infra; Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University of
Alabama Health Servs. Found., P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003)
(stating that an appellate court cannot affirm on an alternative legal
ground "where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial
level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an
affirmance").

12King's affidavit states that he was "duly sworn" by "the
undersigned," but the notary certification was not signed by a notary.

17
CL-2023-0166

"7. On or about May of 2021, I was informed [New
Bethel] had received a summons and complaint regarding the
parking area project and Woods Construction.

"8. Other than the summons and complaint, I was never
served with [the application for entry of default] in this
lawsuit. I received no notice of the scheduled court dates or
that [Woods Construction] was seeking a default judgment
against [New Bethel].

"9. If I had received these filings, I would have
undoubtedly contested the default judgment against [New
Bethel] because [it] is not liable to Woods Construction for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or any other claim."13

On December 27, 2021, the trial court entered an order granting

New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion; no hearing on that motion was held and

no grounds for granting that motion were stated in the order. 14 The

13A substantially similar affidavit from Ellis was notarized on May

16, 2022, and apparently was submitted during subsequent proceedings.

14"An order granting a motion seeking relief from a judgment under

Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., is generally considered an interlocutory order
because further proceedings are contemplated by the trial court;
therefore, such an order is not appealable." Ex parte Overton, 985 So. 2d
423, 424 (Ala. 2007).

We note that Woods Construction made no argument to the trial
court and makes no argument on appeal that the trial court erred by not
providing Woods Construction with time to respond to New Bethel's Rule
60(b) motion, that it erred by not conducting a hearing on that motion, or
18
CL-2023-0166

December 2021 order also set the case for a trial to be held on June 23,

2022. Trial was eventually rescheduled for October 27, 2022.

On January 17, 2022, New Bethel filed an answer denying the

material allegations of Woods Construction's complaint and a

counterclaim against Woods Construction. Thereafter, Woods

Construction filed a motion requesting that the trial court vacate the

December 2021 order based on a lack of jurisdiction. According to Woods

Construction, New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion had "incorrectly cit[ed] a

jurisdictional defect" regarding lack of service of the application for entry

of default. New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion, however, makes no reference

to "jurisdiction," and we take Woods Construction's statement as an

admission that it had understood that the motion might have been based

on Rule 60(b)(4). See note 11, supra; Cornelius v. Browning, 85 So. 3d

954, 958 (Ala. 2011) (quoted infra). Woods Construction argued that the

trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion

because New Bethel had failed to file a timely appeal from the August

that no evidence had been submitted that supported the granting of that
motion.
19
CL-2023-0166

2021 judgment, because New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion purportedly was

a successive postjudgment motion (i.e., merely an attempt to have the

trial court reconsider the arguments made in the August 2021 letter),

and because New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion was untimely filed and

failed to "identify any issues that would allow [such] motion … to be

granted." Woods Construction also requested that the trial court strike

the answer and counterclaim that had been filed by New Bethel after the

entry of the December 2021 order.

On May 17, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Woods

Construction's motion to vacate, but no transcript of that hearing appears

in the record. Thereafter, Woods Construction requested that the trial

court issue an order regarding its motion to vacate, and New Bethel filed

a response opposing the granting of that motion. In New Bethel's

response, it argued that it had contended at the May 2022 hearing that

the trial court had properly granted its Rule 60(b) motion based on that

court's broad discretionary authority under Rule 55 and New Bethel's

satisfaction of the Kirtland factors. New Bethel further alleged that the

trial court had indicated during that May 2022 hearing that it would

20
CL-2023-0166

"stand by its previous ruling." On June 20, 2022, the trial court entered

an order denying Woods Construction's motion to vacate, without stating

any reason for that ruling.

In October 2022, the trial court held a trial regarding Woods

Construction's claim and New Bethel's counterclaim; Jerry Woods, Ellis,

and King testified. During the trial, counsel for Woods Construction

renewed its "objection to the entire proceedings today" because the

December 2021 order granting New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion "was

outside the time frame." New Bethel requested, in part, $15,000 as

compensatory damages for the additional amount it purportedly would

have to pay to have the allegedly defective asphalt job corrected. On

February 9, 2023, the trial court entered a judgment against Woods

Construction and in favor of New Bethel in the amount of $15,000.

Woods Construction filed a timely notice of appeal to this court from the

February 2023 judgment.

Woods Construction argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction

to enter the December 2021 order granting New Bethel's Rule 60(b)

21
CL-2023-0166

motion based on the terms of Rule 60(b) and precedents discussing

postjudgment practice. Rule 60(b) states:

"On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may
relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct
of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable
time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than four (4)
months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered
or taken." 15

15Woods Construction does not attack the merits of the trial court's

decision to grant the Rule 60(b) motion. We note that the granting of a
motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is reviewed de novo. See Allsopp v.
Bolding, 86 So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2011); Cornelius v. Browning, 85 So. 3d
954, 958 (Ala. 2011). Nevertheless,

"[t]he de novo standard of review does not relieve an appellant
of [his or] her burden of demonstrating that the trial court
erred. Under our precedent and the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, an appellant -- even one seeking de novo review --
must make reasoned and particularized arguments in support
of reversal."

22
CL-2023-0166

Woods Construction first argues that the trial court erred by

granting New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion because, it says, that motion

was not filed within 120 days of the entry of the August 2021 judgment.

However, the 4-month period for filing a motion seeking relief from a

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., does not apply to a

motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), see discussion and n.10, supra;

see also Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, 643 (Ala.

2003) ("[A] motion for relief from a void judgment is not governed by the

reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]"). Thus, we

reject this argument.16

Woods Construction next argues that the trial court erred by

granting New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion because that motion was merely

Lay v. Destafino, [Ms. 1210383, Feb. 17, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.
2023).
16It does not appear that New Bethel or the trial court relied on the

catch-all subparagraph of Rule 60(b) -- (b)(6) -- which "operates
exclusively of the specific grounds listed in clauses (1) through (5)." It is
well settled that "a party may not escape the four-month limitation
applicable to clauses (1) through (3) merely by characterizing the motion
as seeking relief under clause (6)." R.E. Grills, Inc. v. Davison, 641 So.
2d 225, 229 (Ala. 1994).

23
CL-2023-0166

a motion seeking reconsideration of what Woods Construction deemed to

be a previous postjudgment motion, i.e., the August 2021 letter. As we

have noted above, however, the August 2021 letter was a nullity, and

counsel for Woods Construction, who is presumed to know the law, see

Cleveland v. Cleveland, 262 Ala. 90, 94, 77 So. 2d 343, 347 (1955), should

have argued to the trial court, who also is presumed to know the law, see

Horne-Ballard v. Ballard, 308 So. 3d 503, 515 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020), that

the trial court could not consider that letter or the arguments of King and

Ellis at the October 2021 hearing. In any event, because New Bethel filed

no motion pursuant to either Rule 55 or Rule 59 and King and Ellis could

not file such a motion on its behalf, New Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion was

not a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of a postjudgment

motion it had filed. Thus, we reject this argument.17

17To be clear, we are not holding that a party who appears pro se

should be treated any differently than a party who has retained counsel
for purposes of determining the effect of a successive postjudgment
motion. Ex parte Veteto, 230 So. 3d 401, 403-04 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017)
(" '[I]t is well settled that the "Rules governing the operation of the courts
of this state are no more forgiving to a pro se litigant than to one
represented by counsel." ' " (quoting Metcalf v. Pentagon Fed. Credit
Union, 155 So. 3d 256, 261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014), quoting in turn Lockett
24
CL-2023-0166

Finally, citing Ex parte Limerick, 86 So. 3d 348 (Ala. 2011), Woods

Construction argues that the trial court erred because a Rule 60(b)

motion cannot be used as a substitute for a Rule 59 motion " 'so as to avoid

the operation of Rule 59.1[, Ala. R. Civ. P.] ' " and relieve a party of the

result of his failure to file a timely appeal. 86 So. 3d at 379 (quoting Ex

parte Johnson, 715 So. 2d 783, 785-86 (Ala. 1998)). Ex parte Limerick,

however, is inapposite because it involved an attempt to use a Rule 60(b)

motion for " 'reconsideration' of the matters already deemed denied by the

trial court in [a] previous postjudgment motion and was an improper use

of Rule 60(b) as a substitute for appeal." Id. at 350. As noted above, there

was no previous postjudgment motion in the present case.18 Accordingly,

we reject this argument.

v. A.L. Sandlin Lumber Co., 588 So. 2d 889, 890 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991)).
New Bethel did not, and could not, appear pro se before the trial court.

18Woods Construction has made no argument, supported by legal

authority, that, under the circumstances of the present case, the trial
court erred because New Bethel was aware of the judgment in time to file
a timely motion pursuant to Rule 59 and should not have been allowed
to forego that opportunity in favor of a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
See Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.; Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.
2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994) ("We have unequivocally stated that it is not the
function of this Court to do a party's legal research or to make and
25
CL-2023-0166

We have addressed the arguments made by Woods Construction

and rejected those arguments. Because Woods Construction makes no

argument that the trial court erred on the merits in ruling on New

Bethel's Rule 60(b) motion, we need not address the issue whether it was

a violation of due process, sufficient to void a judgment, to have not

provided notice of the application for entry of default to New Bethel, when

it had been served with a summons and complaint but had not filed an

appearance. See Austin v. Austin, 159 So. 3d 753, 760 (Ala. Civ. App.

2013) ("[T]he father was 'in default for failure to appear' because he had

failed to answer the mother's petition. … [He] did not appear, and he

was not entitled to service of the mother's motion seeking a trial date

under Rule 5(a)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] or of the scheduling order under Rule

77(d)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.] Thus, we cannot agree that the failure of the

mother and the trial-court clerk to serve the father with either the

address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general
propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument."); see
also White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.
2008) ("Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R. App. P.,] requires that arguments in briefs
contain discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support
the party's position. If they do not, the arguments are waived.").
26
CL-2023-0166

mother's motion or the scheduling order amounts to a denial of his due-

process rights such that the judgment should be set aside."); see also

Earls v. Forga Contracting, Inc., (No. 1:19-cv-00190-MR-WCM, Sept. 24,

2021) (W.D.N.C. 2021) (not reported in Federal Supplement) (noting that

"Rule 5(a)[, Fed. R. Civ. P.,] requires that written motions be served, but

'[n]o service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear' "

and concluding that, "[e]ven if service of a motion for entry of default were

required by the Rules, Forga concedes that the Defendants were served

with the summons and Complaint in July of 2019 and with the default

judgment in December of 2020. … Despite this, the Defendants failed to

take timely action and waited to file their present motion for relief until

June 16, 2021, six months after they were notified of the default

judgment against them. Even though the Plaintiff's failure to serve the

request for entry of default might be a technical violation of Rule 5(a),

such failure would not serve to void the default judgment under these

circumstances.") (footnote omitted).19 See generally 4B Charles Wright,

19The Earls court acknowledged that federal district courts are split

regarding the issue whether Rule 5(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires service
on a defendant of an application for entry of default where no default had
27
CL-2023-0166

Arthur Miller, & Adam Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1144

(4th ed. 2015) ("Federal Rule [of Civil Procedure] 5(a)(2) provides that no

service of papers is required on a party who is in default for failing to

appear. … [A] party who has not appeared is not entitled to service under

Rule 5 ….") (footnote omitted); 10A Charles Wright, Arthur Miller, &

Mary Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2687 (4th ed. 2016) ("[A]

defaulting party who has failed to appear, thereby manifesting no

intention to defend, is not entitled to notice of the application for a default

judgment under either Rule 55(b)(1) or Rule 55(b)(2)[, Fed. R. Civ. P.]").

Based on the foregoing, the February 2023 judgment is affirmed.

Woods Construction's request for attorney's fees on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

yet been entered against that defendant. See Earls, at n.1. The split
revolves around the issue whether it is the fact of default or the default
entry of the clerk that controls the determination whether a party is in
default for purposes of the service requirement of Rule 5(a).
28