You dont have javascript enabled! Please enable it!

Process Serving 102 – Case Law

PS 102 – Understanding Case Summaries
PS 102 – Chapter 1 – An Introduction to Personal Service Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 1 – Article 1 – Personal Service Held Invalid – Gross vs Sunding
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – An Introduction to Abode Service
9 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 1 – Abode Service Upheld – Lino vs Hole
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 2 – Abode Service Upheld – Chase v. Starkweather
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 3 – Abode Service Upheld – Sheldon v Fettig
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 4 – Abode Service Held Invalid – McCann v. Orth
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 5 – Abode Service Upheld – Wichert vs Cardwell
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 6 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Farmer vs Davis
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 7 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Salts vs Estes
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 8 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Gerean v. Martin-Joven
PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 9 – Abode Service Held Invalid – Blankenship v. Kaldor
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – An Introduction to Immunity from Service Case Law
2 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 1 – Immunity from Service – State ex rel Gunn v. Superior Court
PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 2 – Immunity from Service – Anderson vs Ivarsson
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – An Introduction to Due Diligence Case Law
6 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 1 – Due Diligence – Brennan vs Hurt
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 2 – Due Diligence – Painter v. Olney
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 3 – Due Diligence – Chase v. Carney
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 4 – Due Diligence – Parkash vs Perry
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 5 – Due Diligence – Carras v Johnson
PS 102 – Chapter 4 – Article 6 – Due Diligence – Wells Fargo v Ngy
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – An Introduction to Non Resident Motorist Act Case Law
3 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 1 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin v Meier
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 2 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Harvey v Obermeit
PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 3 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin vs Triol
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – An Introduction to Evasion of Service Case Law
5 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 1 – Evasion of Service – State vs Vahl
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 2 – Evasion of Service – Weiss vs Glemp
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 3 – Evasion of Service – Diversified Wood vs Johnson
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 4 – Evasion of Service – United Pacific Insurance vs Discount Company
PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 5 – Evasion of Service – Mann vs Hobbick
PS 102 – Chapter 7 – An Introduction to Defendant Instructed Service Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 7 – Article 1 – Instructed Service – Thayer vs Edmonds
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – An Introduction to Service on an Entity Case Law
4 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 1 – Service on an Entity – Dolby vs Worthy
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 2 – Service on an Entity – Lybbert vs Grant County
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 3 – Service on an Entity – Reiner vs Pittsburg Des Moines Corp
PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 4 – Service on an Entity – Weber vs Associated Surgeons
PS 102 – Chapter 9 – An Introduction to Time Computation Case Law
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 9 – Article 1 – Time Computation – Stikes Woods vs City of Lacey
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – An Introduction to Who May Serve Case Law
2 Topics
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 1 – Who May Serve – Brown-Edwards vs Powell
PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 2 – Who May Serve – Scanlan vs Townsend
PS 102 – Chapter 11 – An Introduction to Statutes of Limitation
1 Topic
PS 102 – Chapter 11 – Article 1 – Statute of Limitations – Sidis vs Brodie Dohrmann Inc
Previous Lesson
Next Topic

PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 1 – Who May Serve – Brown-Edwards vs Powell

Process Serving 102 – Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 10 – An Introduction to Who May Serve Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 1 – Who May Serve – Brown-Edwards vs Powell

SUMMARY
144 Wn. App. 109, Brown-Edwards v. Powell
[No. 26028-3-III. Division Three. April 17, 2008.]
ELLEN BROWN-EDWARDS, Respondent, v. JAMES POWELL ET AL., Petitioners.
BROWN, J., dissents by separate opinion.

Facts

A car driven by James Powell collided with a car driven by Ellen Brown-Edwards. Ms. Brown-Edwards sued Mr. Powell and his wife, Shirley Powell, for injuries she claimed from the accident. Ms. Brown-Edwards hired a process server to serve the summons and complaint.

The process server served the Powells’ neighbor, Shirley Vertrees. The process server asked Ms. Vertrees if she was “Shirley.” She said yes. He then handed her a copy of the summons and complaint and said: “Consider yourself served.” Ms. Vertrees noticed that the papers were for her neighbor, Ms. Powell, and delivered them to her. She later signed an affidavit. She swore that she was competent to serve the papers and that she had served them.

The Powells moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The court denied their motion. The court concluded that Ms. Vertrees effected service of process when she handed the papers to the Powells and granted discretionary review of the court’s refusal to dismiss this suit for insufficiency of service.

Specific Issues

  • May any person who fits the definition of a process server effectively serve documents such that the court acquires jurisdiction? Yes
  • Must a proof of service be signed by the process server in order to effect service? Yes
  • Must the process server have a contractual agreement with the party in order to effect service? No

Holdings

  • The hired process server left the document’s with a neighbor, whom by chance shared the same first name as one of the defendants.
  • Ms. Vertrees delivered the papers to the defendants by personally handing them to Ms. Powell (co-defendant, wife, resident).
  • Ms. Vertrees signed a sworn declaration attesting to her ability to serve these documents and to the actual service.

Reasoning

A process server is defined as any person who is (1) over 18 years old, (2) competent to be a witness, and (3) not a party to the action may serve process.

Ms. Vertrees certainly met the criteria for a process server. Nothing in the rule requires that a process server have a contractual obligation to serve process. Nor is there any requirement of proof of intent to serve process. The court found nothing that would prohibit a person who comes into possession of a summons and complaint by defective service from being a competent process server. The rule prohibits only a party to the action from serving process. The court concluded then that Ms. Vertrees was a competent process server.

“Service made in the modes provided in this section shall be taken and held to be personal service.” Service thus constitutes personal service when (1) a copy of the summons is delivered to the defendant personally, and (2) a copy of the summons is left at the defendant’s house of usual abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who lives at the house at the time of service. Here, Ms. Vertrees, as process server, personally delivered the copy of the summons and complaint she received to Ms. Powell, a named defendant. That is adequate personal service on Ms. Powell.

In summary, Ms. Vertrees properly served Mr. Powell, a named defendant in this case, by substitute service when she left the summons at Mr. Powell’s house with his wife, Ms. Powell, who was undisputedly of suitable age and discretion and living at the house at the time of service.

C4PSE Comment

While this could be considered a case of mistaken identity; it is actually a case of lack of attention to detail. Had the server been paying attention he would have realized that he was at the wrong house and that the Shirley he was serving had the wrong last name. As process servers, we are constantly dealing with names and numbers and it is up to us to ensure that we have all of these things correct. Always take that extra moment to ensure that you are on the right road, at the right house and are talking to the right person. This particular process server was extremely lucky in the way the case turned out.

Previous Lesson
Back to Lesson
Next Topic