Showing posts with label good cause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good cause. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Limitations on Virginia Default Judgments: Supreme Court ruling in AME Financial Corp. v. Kiritsis


On March 4, 2011 Virginia Supreme Court detailed parameters for which a party can be relieved of default judgment. Additionally the Supreme Court took the time to define the amorphous concept of "good cause." In short, if you wish to contest a claim please remember to properly respond when you receive service of the initial complaint.

The written opinion in AME Financial Corp. v. Kiritsis can be found at:

What is default judgment?

Default judgment is a form of judgment entered when the opposing party fails to respond to an initial pleading. In most instances, in Virginia Circuit Courts a party receiving a copy of the complaint via proper service of process will have 21 days to file responsive pleadings. This requirement will almost always be stated clearly in a summons attached to the initial complaint served on the defendant. If the defendant then fails to file proper responsive pleadings it is possible for a circuit court to enter default judgment against that defendant. It is important to note that upon failure to file any pleadings within the proper timeframe the defendant is considered in default, but a default judgment will not be entered until the plaintiff files, and the court hears, a motion for default judgment. Additionally, it is possible for a default judgment to be entered without damages being set, such damages to be determined at a later evidentiary hearing.

AME Financial Corp. v. Kiritsis - how not to respond to a Complaint

The defendant in AME Financial Corp. v. Kiritsis, AME Financial Corp. [“AME”], made a surprising series of blunders in attempting to respond to a complaint served upon it by the plaintiff, Kiritsis.  On May 24, 2006 the complaint was served on AME's Virginia registered agent. On June 1, 2006 an officer of AMD contacted counsel for the plaintiff, at which point plaintiff's counsel allegedly informed the officer that AME would need to file a response to the complaint signed by a Virginia licensed attorney. Under Virginia law, corporations may only be represented by an attorney in court. On June 14, 2006 AME filed an answer to the complaint signed by a corporate officer of AME.  The plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment and served it at least once on AME via US mail. On July 21, 2006 a default judgment hearing was held and default judgment was entered against AME.  AME appears to have then hired a Virginia attorney who filed a motion requesting leave for permission to file late pleadings on July 31, 2006. AME did not file a motion for relief from the default judgment until September 26, 2006.

In ruling upon the motion for relief from default judgment the Circuit Court Judge denied relief from default judgment. Upon a motion for reconsideration a different Circuit Court Judge denied relief from default judgment. Two Circuit Court Judges for the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County ruled in this case, Judge Cleo E. Powell and Judge Frederick G. Rockwell, III. It is not clear from the Supreme Court decision which of the two judges made each particular ruling.

AME, as an active participant in the litigation still contested and was allowed to present evidence contesting the calculation of damages. Although AME appealed another issue, the primary issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the Circuit Court Judges abused their discretion by refusing to grant relief from default judgment.

Virginia Supreme Court’s rulings