Default Judgment Not Void

A default judgment was not void despite procedural irregularities in obtaining it. Nor was the judgment inconsistent with the relief requested in the complaint.

Before you jump to any conclusions about that first sentence, yes, a default judgment and a judgment based on a default are different things and yes, I’m really talking about a judgment based on a default. Google, however, apparently will rank me higher if I say “default judgment not void” when I mean “judgment based on a default not void.” So there you have it. Now back to the case.

Plaintiff in Dawson v. Britagna filed a breach of contract complaint seeking money damages and “other and further relief as the court finds just and equitable.” Defendant timely appeared. I summarize the ensuing “convoluted procedural history” this way: plaintiff attempted to obtain a judgment based on a default with three different motions all of which were procedurally incorrect for one reason or another.

Plaintiff got his act together and obtained a default for failure to plead. The trial court conducted a hearing in damages and entered a judgment against defendant for $70,000.

Two years later, defendant moved to open the judgment on the ground that “it is void as a matter of law.” The trial court denied the motion because it was untimely, having been filed outside the four month limitation, and the judgment was not void in any event. The Appellate Court affirmed.

Arguments on Appeal

Defendant’s first argument was that the judgment was void because plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures in obtaining his default. Her second argument was that the judgment was void because it was inconsistent with the relief requested in the complaint.

Appellate Court’s Conclusions

As to defendant’s first argument, the court effectively concluded that none of the procedural irregularities surrounding the default prejudiced defendant because she had appeared in the action, received notices of the hearings and court orders, but did not nothing in response. Additionally, the irregularities were not a factor in the default judgment that the trial court ultimately rendered.

The court’s conclusion in respect of defendant’s second argument requires a few more facts. Plaintiff and defendant had some sort of business arrangement where plaintiff would supply funds for defendant to operate a cellular telephone store (Sprint). The deal seems to have contemplated that defendant would return plaintiff’s funds and give him a share of the profits. Plaintiff sued because defendant didn’t tender him any money.

Defendant expressed her second argument as follows: “There is most definitely no claim made in the complaint for return of mon[eys] loaned or invested in the business enterprise.’’ The Appellate Court concluded that, although plaintiff didn’t necessarily use the best words in the complaint to articulate his claim, they sufficiently expressed his intent. That, coupled with the fact that defendant’s default was an admission of the allegations, meant the judgment was consistent with the relief requested in the complaint.

Impact

I think the court left the door open to the notion that procedural irregularities might render a judgment void if the irregularities prejudiced a party.

About the Photo

Who doesn’t like UK telephone booths?