Once again, I'm amazed that they think that despite you informing them that: A) he was never named a defendant, B) he was never served with process, and C) there was no service by publication.
I'd wager if you present those three facts to them now, and ask whether a judgment would be enforceable despite A-C, they would hedge their answer. Nobody should feel confident that they know the outcome with those three facts.
If someone can't tell that a shell is a shell, can you trust anything else that they say?