Lloyd C. Young v. Gloria Hamner

── Lloyd C. Young v. Gloria Hamner ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: April 17, 2026 Author: Christy Edwards Category: General Rel: April 17, 2026 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, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-0887 _________________________ Lloyd C. Young v. Gloria Hamner Appeal from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court (CV-25-900536) EDWARDS, Judge. In May 2025, Gloria Hamner filed a complaint against Lloyd C. Young in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court ("the trial court"), alleging that Young had defaulted on a promissory note that Young had executed in Hamner's favor and that he owed Hamner $22,721.94. Hamner attached CL-2025-0887 to her complaint a copy of the purported promissory note. Hamner requested that Young be served by commercial carrier under Rule 4(i)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, the record reflects that the trial-court clerk did not institute service by commercial carrier, see Rule 4(i)(3)(A)(i), and that, instead, Hamner's attorney selected a commercial carrier and instituted service pursuant to Rule 4(i)(3)(A)(ii). On May 19, 2025, as required by Rule 4(i)(3)(C), Hamner's attorney filed in the trial court a form titled "Proof of Service by Commercial Carrier." Hamner properly included with her proof-of-service form the receipt of delivery from the commercial carrier indicating that delivery had been accomplished on May 19, 2025. The receipt of delivery indicated that the delivery had been "Signed for by: L. Young"; contained, under a section designated as "Special Handling," the statement "indirect signature required"; and, at the bottom of the receipt, stated that "no signature is available for this … shipment because a signature was not required." The receipt of delivery bears no written signature and no electronic signature. See Rule 30(G), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. (indicating that an "electronic signature" is denoted by the use of "/s/" followed by the name of the signatory). 2 CL-2025-0887 On June 25, 2025, Hamner filed a motion titled "Application for Entry of Default, Motion for Default Judgment, and Supporting Affidavit," accompanied by an affidavit executed by Hamner's counsel stating that Young had been served on May 19, 2025, and that Young had neither answered nor otherwise defended against the complaint. The affidavit further stated that the complaint sought $22,721.94 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs, which the affidavit averred were $1,307.50 and $380.55, respectively. Hamner also provided the trial court with a proposed default judgment. On the following day, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Hamner using the proposed default judgment. On July 2, 2025, Young filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. In his motion, Young challenged service of process, arguing that Hamner had not properly perfected service of process by commercial carrier pursuant to Rule 4(i)(3). Specifically, Young challenged Hamner's failure to file an "Affidavit of Delivery to a Commercial Carrier of Process and Complaint," as required by Rule 4(i)(3)(B)(ii), and the lack of a 3 CL-2025-0887 signature on the receipt of delivery from the commercial carrier.1 On September 3, 2025, the trial court denied Young's motion to set aside the