{"id":2184,"date":"2018-04-06T19:40:23","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T03:40:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2184"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:14:36","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:14:36","slug":"ps-102-chapter-2-article-1-abode-service-upheld-lino-vs-hole","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-2-an-introduction-to-abode-service\/ps-102-chapter-2-article-1-abode-service-upheld-lino-vs-hole\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 1 – Abode Service Upheld – Lino vs Hole"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary of <\/strong><\/span>
\nLino v. Hole, 159 Wash. 16, 291 Pac. 1079 (1939)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Facts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiff\/Respondents Lino filed suit to enforce a promissory note against Defendants\/Appellants J.C. Hole and Inga Hole. The complaint<\/a> alleged that J.C. Hole and Inga Hole are husband and wife. The summons and complaint<\/a> issued at the time of commencement of the action<\/a> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial<\/a> History<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Neither defendant<\/a> appeared in the action<\/a> and judgment<\/a> by default<\/a> was entered against them. Appellants moved to vacate the judgment<\/a>. The motion<\/a> was denied by the court and Defendants Hole appealed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specific Issue<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Is service of process sufficient when it is made in the vicinity of the house, not in the house itself? Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Holding<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is not required that service be made in the house of usual abode of the defendant<\/a>, but “at the house” of his usual abode.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reasoning<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

C4PSE Comment<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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<\/a>’s usual place of abode but “at” the defendant<\/a>’s usual place of abode.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/a> specific, change a fact<\/a> and you may<\/a> change the way in which a court will rule.<\/span><\/p>\n

Current law<\/a> covering abode service is found in RCW 4.28.080<\/a>(16) which says:<\/span><\/p>\n

(16) In all other cases, to the defendant<\/a> personally, or by leaving a copy of the summons at the house of his or her usual abode with some person<\/a> of suitable age and discretion then resident therein.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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<\/a> alleged that J.C. Hole and Inga Hole are husband and wife. The summons and complaint<\/a> issued at the time of commencement of the action<\/a> […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2178,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2184","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2184\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2178"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}