We are irritated with the writing style here. The orientation paragraph does not tell us anything. Then the next paragraph uses “by and through” and an em-dash when the sentence should have been rewritten. The procedural history is convoluted, but interspersing rules and citations makes it more so. Are these rules and citations what the trial court cited or are they guideposts the court of appeals gives us for what should have happened? This opinion needs stronger editing including word choice, prepositional phrasing, and reworking citations that are dumped into the middle of a sentence. On style, here is a link to consider.  

Despite these irritations, the appellate court correctly concludes the “general rule,” that there is no appeal from a default judgment, is prudential and not jurisdictional.  It is prudential because a trial court may not have had the opportunity to consider the reasons urged for setting aside a default. The points made to set aside the default are often the basis for the appeal. Here, the defendant provided some argument in a motion to dismiss, and the trial court considered this before refusing to set aside the default. The pleading captioned a “motion to dismiss” was not an answer, and the defendant failed to timely answer the complaint despite repeated notice and opportunity. While there was a right to appeal, the default judgment is affirmed.

Link to the opinion