Imagine you are suing someone. You could be suing them for anything. You obtain a lawyer and start the process. You send them what your lawyer calls notice of service of process to tell them you are suing them, and you get no response. You find this strange, but your attorney assures you this sometimes happens and everything is fine. However, as the case continues, you file motions and appear in front of the court, but they never show up. They never say a word at all. Eventually the court enters a default judgment. Your lawyer explains in basic terms that this is the court granting you everything you asked for in the lawsuit; however, they still haven't responded and never have.

The judge awarded you $10,000, but you have no clue how to obtain the money. Months go by as you and your lawyer send letters, and there still is no response from them. Eventually you go to the court, and the court starts to garnish their wages and holds them in contempt of court. Finally, they show up and argue they never saw notice of the court proceeding because you had the wrong address. Therefore, they argue, the judgement should be set aside, and they should not have to pay you. You cannot believe this, the address you had was on every single official document the person had. You then turn to your attorney and ask if this is really a way out of them paying.

In a case with similar circumstances decided on May 9, 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the judgment could not be set aside due to notice of the lawsuit being proper. This case Lewis v. Ojano-Bracco arises out of Jefferson County, Alabama and centers around Lewis's defrauding of the plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiffs gave notice of the lawsuit to Lewis's address on record. This address was used by Lewis to register his business and declare bankruptcy from 2017-2020. Lewis also alleged he ignored the lawsuit due to him not responding to debt collectors. In response, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs Lewis defrauded. Lewis then argued "that he was never properly served with process" Lewis v. Ojano-Bracco, No. SC-2024-0534, 2025 WL 1350559, at *2 (Ala. May 9, 2025).

In response to this argument, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Lewis's claim. Under Alabama Law "service of process is valid if performed 'at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein." Lewis, WL 1350559, at *2; (Quoting Ala. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1)). Lewis alleged in response that the address used was not his usual place of abode. See Lewis, WL 1350559, at *2. "Courts look to the facts of each case to determine a party's 'usual place of abode.'" Lewis, WL 1350559, at *2; (Quoting Allsopp, 86 So. 3d at 962).

In Lewis the evidence indicated the address used was his usual place of abode. "he provided the address to the Secretary of State when…various companies. He himself testified that the… address was his "address on record." And he even personally accepted service of process -- in yet another suit -- at that address." See Lewis, WL 1350559, at *2. Weighing this evidence, the court held "the facts… indicate that the… address was permanent enough for Lewis to provide it to the IRS[,] [t]he Alabama Secretary of State's office, and the bankruptcy court during this period…. [This] confirms that this address was sufficiently his "usual place of abode." Id. Accordingly, the court held "The Letson Farms address was Lewis's "usual place of abode." Id. Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Lewis's argument and affirmed the default judgment.

Under this ruling, to properly give notice of a lawsuit in Alabama among other requirements, the person must be served at their usual place of abode. The Alabama Supreme Court made the correct and necessary decision in this case. Had the court decided differently, a person could rent a second home to avoid being served in a lawsuit in an effort to escape their actions. Often times legal ideals and rules can seem arbitrary or complex. these, often arbitrary rules confuse the public and serve to make, the American court system look opaque, untrustworthy, and ultimately a place where the public is not welcomed. However, the Alabama Supreme Court should be applauded for this decision which values reasonableness and understandability to an average person. The ruling avoids legalese and lays out simply and understandably where someone's regular place of abode is. The Alabama Supreme Court should be applauded for such a decision.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.