The case arose in June 2023 when Anietra Mays sued Van Diver, alleging he forged her signature on a life insurance application while she was divorcing her husband. According to the complaint, Van Diver was an employee of American Benefit LLC, a subsidiary of Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, and helped Mays's husband obtain a life insurance policy on her life without her knowledge during their divorce proceedings. Mays's husband then purchased the policy from Omaha and named himself the beneficiary.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice McCool rejected Van Diver's argument that his 22-month failure to respond to the lawsuit constituted 'excusable neglect' under Alabama civil procedure rules. "The facts of this case therefore indicate that the default judgment was not the result of Van Diver's excusable neglect but, instead, was the result of the fact that he was 'grossly careless of [his] own affairs,'" McCool wrote, quoting precedent.
The court delivered particularly sharp language about Van Diver's extended inaction after being served. "For a period of 22 months -- almost 2 years -- after being served with the complaint and a summons, Van Diver made no attempt whatsoever to defend himself against Mays's fraud claim and, instead, waited more than 7 weeks after the default judgment had been entered before he made his initial appearance in the case," Justice McCool wrote.
The procedural history showed Van Diver was served by certified mail in October 2023 but did not retain counsel until August 2025. The Montgomery Circuit Court had dismissed the case in April 2025 for failure to perfect service, but reinstated it after Mays produced proof that Van Diver had been served. The circuit court entered default judgment in June 2025, awarding Mays $200,000 in damages without holding a hearing. Van Diver then moved to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), claiming mistake and excusable neglect.
The Supreme Court rejected Van Diver's claims that he reasonably relied on statements from co-defendant Omaha's counsel that matters had been 'completed and handled.' Justice McCool noted that even if Van Diver's reliance was reasonable, those conversations occurred in 'April or May of 2025,' which 'does not explain his failure to make any attempt to defend himself from October 6, 2023, to April or May of 2025 -- a period of at least 18 months.' The court emphasized that pro se litigants are not excused from procedural rules due to unfamiliarity with them.
However, the court found error in the damages award, citing its precedents in J & P Construction Co. v. Valta Construction Co. and Martin v. Robbins. Justice McCool explained that while Rule 55(b)(2) gives trial courts discretion on whether to hold damages hearings, "the discretion bestowed by the rule is not so great as to obviate the need for any sort of inquiry into the amount of damages where the claim is not for a sum certain or a sum capable of being made certain by computation." Since fraud claims generally don't qualify as claims for fixed sums, and Mays provided no evidence supporting her $200,000 request, a hearing was required.
The Supreme Court followed the approach from Martin v. Robbins, affirming liability but reversing the damage award. The case now returns to Montgomery Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing where Mays must present proof supporting her damages claim. The court will then enter a new default judgment based on evidence presented at that hearing.