Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hy-Line Enterprises, Inc. v. Aldridge
Citations: 751 So. 2d 1247; 1999 Ala. LEXIS 373; 1999 WL 1065054Docket: 1981273
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 23, 1999; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Hooper dissents and supports granting the petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Kevin Aldridge vs. Hy-Line Enterprises, Inc. Aldridge filed a lawsuit against Hy-Line on October 19, 1997, for breach of warranty and fraud. On October 28, Randy Hoff, Hy-Line's operations manager, sent a letter detailing the company's defenses to both the circuit court clerk and Aldridge’s attorney, although the circuit court's case action summary did not reflect this correspondence. On January 22, 1998, the circuit court ordered that action be taken in the case or it would be dismissed, but only Aldridge received notice of this order. Subsequently, a default judgment was entered against Hy-Line on February 11, 1998, awarding Aldridge $42,425. Hy-Line's motion to set aside the default judgment was denied, and their appeal was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals without opinion. Hooper argues that the default judgment was improper, asserting that Hy-Line had made an appearance in the case and was entitled to notice of the default judgment application as required by Rule 55(b)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. He critiques the Court of Civil Appeals for concluding that Hoff’s letter did not constitute a valid appearance for Hy-Line, referencing cases cited that do not address whether a non-attorney can make an appearance on behalf of a corporation. Hooper emphasizes that the rationale for prohibiting non-lawyers from representing corporations—related to the necessity for legal skill and judgment—does not apply here. He contends that Hoff should be considered an agent capable of making an initial appearance for Hy-Line, which would warrant notice of court actions, thus arguing that the trial court's procedures were flawed. Hy-Line claims it was not informed by either the plaintiffs' attorney or the trial court that it could not appear in the case without legal representation. The company argues that the case action summary indicated it was proceeding 'pro se' and that the plaintiffs' attorney was aware that Hoff submitted a document purportedly answering on behalf of Hy-Line. The company contends it should be allowed to present its case merits, asserting a lack of knowledge about the invalidity of its appearance. Hy-Line argues it was entitled to notice of the trial court's order regarding potential dismissal due to inaction. Citing *Cockrell v. World’s Finest Chocolate Co.*, the court has previously established that an appearance involves some form of submission demonstrating a party's intent to submit to the court's jurisdiction. In *Cockrell*, a document indicating an attorney's forthcoming reply was deemed sufficient for an appearance and entitled the defendant to notice of a default application. Similarly, Hoff's submission outlining Hy-Line’s defenses was considered an intention to submit to the court's jurisdiction. Even if Hoff could not represent the corporation, his correspondence warranted notice regarding a potential default judgment. The court policy favors resolving cases on their merits and discourages default judgments. Consequently, the lack of required notice necessitates setting aside the default judgment, regardless of the existence of a meritorious defense. The petition for a writ of certiorari is recommended for approval.