Ex parte Edgefield Holdings, LLC, [Ms. CL-2025-0532, Nov. 21, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The court (Bowden, J.; Hanson and Fridy, JJ., concur; Moore, P.J., concurs in the result, which Edwards, J., joins) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to set aside its order declaring a 13-year-old money judgment against Joe B. Crosby (“Crosby”) void for lack of service of process.
After hearing arguments but not receiving any sworn testimony or other evidence, “the circuit court ruled that ‘the defense has met the heavy burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence with corroboration to impeach the process server’s affidavit indicating that Joe B. Crosby was personally served.’” Ms. *4. The court reiterates that a trial court’s interlocutory order granting a Rule 60 motion is reviewed via mandamus. Ms. *5, citing Ex parte Ward, 264 So. 3d 52, 55 (Ala. 2018). Ms. *5.
“[A] party challenging the correctness of a facially proper return of personal service by a process server has the burden of establishing lack of service by clear and convincing evidence.” Ms. *7, citing Insurance Mgmt. & Admin., Inc. v. Palomar Ins. Corp., 590 So. 2d 209 (Ala. 1991), and Raine v. First Western Bank, 362 So. 2d 846 (Ala. 1978). No testimony was taken at the hearing on the Rule 60 motion and no exhibits were admitted. Therefore, the circuit court erred in setting aside the judgment because “[i]t is well settled that arguments of counsel are not evidence and may not form the factual basis of a court’s ruling.” Ms. *8