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 5 – Article 1 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin v Meier

Process Serving 102 – Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 5 – An Introduction to Non Resident Motorist Act Case Law PS 102 – Chapter 5 – Article 1 – Non Resident Motorist Act – Martin v Meier

Martin v. Meir
111 Wn. 2d 471, 760 P.2d 925 (1988)

Editor’s Note: Although the Nonresident Motorist Act has changed since this case was decided it still provides a number of useful lessons regarding the service of a summons and complaint.

Facts

Plaintiff Martin and Defendant Meier were involved in an automobile accident in Whatcom County, Washington. The accident report listed a Seattle address for defendant and gave his occupation as a student at Western Washington University. In the month before the running of the 3 year statute of limitations, Plaintiff filed an action in King County based upon defendant’s address given in the accident report. Shortly before filing, Plaintiff attempted to personally serve defendant at the Seattle address. That address turned out to be the residence of Defendant’s parents. A return of service of not found stated that after diligent search and inquiry, the process server was unable to find defendant in King County.

Plaintiff then served the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State pursuant to RCW 46.64.040. In accordance with the statute, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail to the Seattle address, and made a diligent inquiry among former neighbors of that address. A process server was told that several years before, defendant and his wife had moved to California. Furthermore, an investigator’s inquiry at the University informed them that defendant was no longer a student.

Following service on the Secretary of State, Defendant filed a special appearance to contest jurisdiction, claiming that service of process on the Secretary of State was invalid, as he had resided in Washington at all times since the accident. He listed 7 different addresses in Washington in which he resided during the period of time material hereto.

Judicial History

Action for Damages filed in King County, later moved to Whatcom County Superior Court. Defendant moved for dismissal of action based on insufficient service of process. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding that RCW 46.64.040 must be strictly construed, and that because defendant was within the state at all times during the limitations period, service under the statute was invalid. Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial.

Specific Issue

Does the nonresident motorist statute only apply where plaintiff can conclusively establish that the defendant is a nonresident or resident who has departed the state? No

Holding

The nonresident motorist statute not only applies where plaintiff can conclusively establish that the defendant is a nonresident or resident who has departed the state, but also where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that this is the case.

Due diligence under the statute requires plaintiff make honest and reasonable efforts to locate the defendant. Not all conceivable means need be employed, but, at least, the accident report, if made, must be examined and the information therein investigated with reasonable effort. In addition, if plaintiff has information available pertaining to defendant’s whereabouts other than that contained in the accident report, plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to investigate based on that information as well.

Reasoning

Service on the Secretary of State in some cases where plaintiff may not know where defendant is located is consonant with the State’s interest in regulating the use of highways for the protection of persons and property within the state, the interest is not dependent on defendant’s actual location. The statutory procedure satisfies due process requirements.

C4PSE Comment

Here is yet another example where proper due diligence is key.

A process server needs to be able to supply the client with an accurate and detailed declaration describing the steps taken in an attempt to locate and serve a target. Simple boiler plate language using phrases such as “due and diligent search” are not sufficient.

Special Note

The Non Resident Motorist Statute, RCW 46.64.040, was amended in 2003. This statute now applies to those cases where the defendant cannot be found in the state after a due and diligent search. The requirements that the defendant has left the state, or that the plaintiff has good and reasonable cause to believe such, no longer applies.

See the course lesson on this topic. See also Huff vs Budbill.

Previous Lesson
Back to Lesson
Next Topic