In Mays v. Trinity Property Consultants, LLC, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landlord in an eviction/unlawful detainer action.[i] The tenant claimed that she was insufficiently provided notice of the lawsuit by the landlord’s process server. 

Background 

On January 24, 2018, Trinity Property Consultants filed an unlawful detainer/eviction action in Shelby County against Brittony Mays. The company demanded possession and damages for unpaid rent, as well as attorney fees. Mays did not reply to the lawsuit. On February 4, 2018, a default judgment was entered against Mays, ordering the apartment to be restored to the landlord. Mays eventually filed an appeal with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. 

Court of Civil Appeals Decision

Mays argued that under Landlord/Tenant law, she was provided insufficient notice of the eviction lawsuit. Specifically, she argued that the statute’s requirement for “reasonable effort” to serve an eviction action was not observed by the property management company’s process server in her case.[ii]

While the process server stated that he knocked on the door of Mays’ unit, Mays pointed out that there was “no evidence concerning the time that (the process server) knocked on the door of the residence,” nor did the process server provide “any other evidence concerning the circumstances of (his) attempt at service, such as the number of times he knocked on the door or how long he waited for a response.”[iii] The court found that the property company did not meet its burden of proving valid service under the landlord/tenant and unlawful detainer statutes.[iv] The court thus voided the default judgment against Mays for lack of proper service.[v]

Alabama Supreme Court Decision

On August 30, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the Court of Civil Appeals, ruling in favor of the landlord. The Supreme Court held that the notice provided to the tenant by the process server was in fact reasonable and met the eviction statute’s requirements for proper service.

Specifically, the Court found that the process server’s attempt to serve was appropriate because the server knocked on the door, posted notice of the action on the door, and mailed the service. The Court held that without “extraordinary facts” in the record (for example, public knowledge that children frequently tear down notices on doors in the apartment complex), the process server's single attempt at knocking on the door to determine if anyone was home was appropriate under the statute. 

The Court held the “proper reading” of the eviction statute showed the landlord’s attempt at personal service, “coupled with the safeguards of subsequently posting and mailing notice, was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Mays of the eviction and unlawful-detainer action against her and satisfied the constitutional requirements of due process.”[vi]