PS 102 – Chapter 6 – Article 5 – Evasion of Service – Mann vs Hobbick
Mann vs Hobbick
Court of Appeals Division 1 – 2002
Docket Number: 49233-1-I
Facts
On December 9, 1997, Jodey Mann was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The other car in the accident was registered to Gary Hobbick.
On December 5, 2000, Mann filed a complaint against Hobbick for damages. On March 3, 2001, Richard Marlow, a process server, went to Hobbick’s house. Marlow approached Hobbick, who was outside doing yard work, and asked if he was Gary Hobbick. Believing that Marlow was a salesperson, Hobbick replied, ‘no,’ and went into his house.
Marlow began to leave, but then saw the name Hobbick on the mailbox. Marlow therefore suspected that Hobbick had lied to him. Marlow went back up to the house and left a copy of the summons and complaint on the front porch. He called out that Hobbick had been served. According to Marlow, Hobbick saw him place the documents on his front porch.
On April 19, 2001, Hobbick filed an Answer to Mann’s Complaint that alleged affirmative defenses including expiration of the statute of limitations and insufficiency of service of process. Thereafter, Hobbick moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mann had failed to accomplish service of process within the applicable statute of limitations. In response, Mann argued that Marlow had properly effected service. The trial court granted Hobbick’s motion for summary judgment. Mann appealed the trial courts ruling.
Specific Issue
- Can a defendant defeat service by simply refusing to accept the documents? No
- Can service be made when the process server is not in a position to yield possession to the defendant? No
Holding
Mann argued that, “Reasonable minds could have reached the conclusion that proper service had been effect on defendant Hobbick.” The trial court and the court of appeals disagreed.
The court recognized that, “The summons need not actually be placed in the defendant’s hand.” Rather, service is complete where the process server attempts to “yield possession and control of the documents” to the defendant while the server is positioned in a manner to accomplish that act.
The court ruled that the process server didn’t inform Hobbick he had legal papers for Hobbick and didn’t attempt to yield possession of the papers until Hobbick had gone into the house.
C4PSE Comment
This case is very similar to Weiss vs Glemp and reinforces what was learned from that hallmark case.
Service can only be made where the server is in a position where physical possession of the papers can be yielded to the defendant. In this case, when the server spoke with the defendant in the yard he didn’t tell him why he was there. When the defendant went into the house the server was no longer in a position to yield possession. With the defendant inside the house there was now a physical barrier between them which prevented service from occurring.
The court also noted the defendant lied to the server. But the court considered this irrelevant since the server didn’t say at the time why he was there. The court accepted the defendant’s story that he lied because he thought the server was a sales person. This implies, but does not clearly state, that if the server had stated his purpose in the beginning then the court might have looked at the situation differently.
This is a rough diagram of a typical courtroom in the state of Washington. Courtrooms vary a great deal from city to city and county to county but they all have the same basic structure.
