Post-Judgment Discovery During Pendency of Appeal Challenging Service of Process
Ex parte Slocumb Law Firm, LLC, [Ms. 2190297, Mar. 13, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). The court (Thompson, P.J.; Moore, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur; Donaldson, J., recuses) denies the Slocumb Law Firm’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court to vacate its order compelling Slocumb to respond to post-judgment interrogatories. The court holds that the post-judgment discovery was collateral to Slocumb’s appeal of the default judgment. Ms. *11, citing Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 992 So. 2d 1252, 1259 (Ala. 2008). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Slocumb to respond to the discovery. Ibid.
The court emphatically rejected Slocumb’s argument that responding to the discovery would waive his appeal asserting insufficiency of service of process. “Neither the filing of a general appearance, nor the taking of a position looking to the merits, prevents a party from attacking the jurisdiction of the court or the service of process.” Ms. *11 (emphasis added by Ex parte Slocumb), quoting Committee Comments on 1973 adoption of Rule 12, Ala. R. Civ. P.