In January 2008, Johnathan Battle died after spending approximately 19 hours at the East Point Jail. Mia’Kesha Jordan, as the parent and natural guardian of Battle’s two-year-old child, and Millicent Takyi, as administratrix of Battle’s estate, filed suit against the City of East Point and the East Point Chief of Police, claiming that Battle died because he suffered a brain injury that remained untreated while he was in custody. The defendants did not respond to the complaint, and the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default. On April 20, 2009, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on damages, without the participation of the defendants, and issued judgment in favor of Jordan and Takyi in the amount of $16 million. On May 18, 2009, the trial court clarified that the judgment against the Chief of Police was in his official capacity only and otherwise denied the defendants’ motion to set aside the judgment. On appeal, the City claims that Jordan and Takyi failed to properly effectuate service of process and, alternatively, that the judgment was insufficient because the trial court’s order failed to adequately include findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find no error, and affirm. 1. A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of service bears the burden of showing improper service,1 and a trial court’s findings of fact regarding service of process will be upheld on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.2 Here, the court-appointed process server testified that he personally served both the Chief of Police and Nina Hickson, who was the City Attorney for the City of East Point. At the hearing on the motion to set aside the judgment, Hickson denied having been personally served with the summons and complaint.3 On appeal, however, the City only pursues its claim that even if Hickson accepted service, she had no authority to do so on its behalf.
“Where the evidence is conflicting with respect to the authority of an employee to receive service, the issue becomes one of fact to be resolved by the trial judge.”4 For the reasons set forth below, we find that evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Jordan and Takyi properly effectuated service of process.
