PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 1 – Abode Service Upheld – Lino vs Hole

Summary of
Lino v. Hole, 159 Wash. 16, 291 Pac. 1079 (1939)

Facts

Plaintiff/Respondents Lino filed suit to enforce a promissory note against Defendants/Appellants J.C. Hole and Inga Hole. The complaint alleged that J.C. Hole and Inga Hole are husband and wife. The summons and complaint issued at the time of commencement of the action was personally served on J.C. Hole and served upon Inga Hole by leaving the summons with J.C. Hole in a roadway leading to the house.

Judicial History

Neither defendant appeared in the action and judgment by default was entered against them. Appellants moved to vacate the judgment. The motion was denied by the court and Defendants Hole appealed.

Specific Issue

Is service of process sufficient when it is made in the vicinity of the house, not in the house itself? Yes

Holding

It is not required that service be made in the house of usual abode of the defendant, but “at the house” of his usual abode.

Reasoning

See also, State ex rel. Pacific Loan and Inv. Co. v. Superior Court, 84 Wash, 392, 146 Pac. 834, where, under the precise situation, the court held the service sufficient.

C4PSE Comment

Process servers should know that the servee does not actually need to be standing in the doorway at the time of service for service to be up held. In this case only one of the defendants was actually presented with the documents and yet service on both of them was considered valid. The service did not occur “in” the defendant’s usual place of abode but “at” the defendant’s usual place of abode.

There are recorded instances of services similar to this occurring, in the driveway, at the neighbors and even down the block and in these instances service has been up held. Though these types of services have been upheld and are usually considered valid, it is in the process server’s best interest to not push this distance from the property too far.

It is important to keep in mind that the courts have considerable discretion in the way they interpret the statutes. Service of process is always fact specific, change a fact and you may change the way in which a court will rule.

Current law covering abode service is found in RCW 4.28.080(16) which says:

(16) In all other cases, to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy of the summons at the house of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein.