{"id":2190,"date":"2018-04-07T09:08:12","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T17:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2190"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:17:07","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:17:07","slug":"ps-102-chapter-2-article-3-abode-service-upheld-sheldon-v-fettig","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-3-abode-service-upheld-sheldon-v-fettig\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 3 – Abode Service Upheld – Sheldon v Fettig"},"content":{"rendered":"

SUMMARY<\/strong><\/span>
\nSheldon v. Fettig, et al<\/a>., 129 Wn.2d. 601 (1996)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Ms. Fettig and Ms. Sheldon were involved in a car accident in Washington State. Sheldon filed suit for damages<\/a> and served process at the home of Fettig’s parents in Seattle, where a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> was left with Fettig’s brother.<\/span><\/p>\n

Eight months before process was served, Fettig relocated to Chicago to attend a flight attendant program. Prior to moving, she had lived on her own for 2-3 years in Seattle and Renton. Immediately before leaving for Chicago she moved back into her parent’s Seattle home for approximately 2 months.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fettig used her parent’s address:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. As a place to be contacted before, during and after the 2 months she lived at her parent’s residence.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. As her address when registering as a Washington State voter.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. When she received a speeding ticket.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. As the address for her car’s registration, bill of sale, and on her car insurance.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Upon completion of the flight attendant program in Chicago, Fettig leased an apartment for 13 months and had her mail sent to Chicago. She joined a health club and opened a checking account<\/a>. Fettig kept her Washington State driver’s license (with her Renton address) and remained registered to vote in Seattle.<\/span><\/p>\n

    As an on-call flight attendant she returned to her parent’s home frequently when not in flight. During the month service was made, Fettig spent 4-5 days at her parent’s home. Fettig was there when Sheldon’s attorney called, and when Sheldon’s attorney sent correspondence, a response was given immediately.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Judicial<\/a> History<\/strong><\/span>
    \nSuperior Court denied     defendant<\/a>’s motion<\/a> for summary judgment<\/a> and rebuffed defense’s claim<\/a> of improper service of process, holding that service at the defendant<\/a>’s parents’ home where a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> was left with defendant<\/a>’s brother satisfied substitute service of process requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Court of Appeals affirmed trial court decision, holding that plaintiff had effected valid substitution of process. Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals and remands the case<\/a> to the trial court.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Specific Issue:<\/span>
    \nIs the Fettig family home in Renton Fettig’s house of usual abode for service of process pursuant to RCW 4.28.0080 (16). Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

    House of usual abode in RCW 4.28.080(15) is to be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold jurisdiction<\/a> of the court.<\/span>
    \nThe underlying purpose of RCW 4.28.080(15) is to provide a means to serve defendants in a fashion reasonably calculated to accomplish     notice<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The term “usual place of abode” must be taken to mean such center of one’s domestic activity that service left with a family member is reasonably calculated to come to one’s attention within the statutory period for the defendant<\/a> to appear.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Indiciations of a center of domestic activity include where a person<\/a> is registered to vote, the address given in registering an automobile, the address noted on a bill of sale, the address shown on a traffic citation<\/a>, the address given to an automobile insurer, and where the defendant<\/a> is frequently present.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In appropriate circumstances a defendant<\/a> may<\/a> maintain more than one house of usual abode if each is center of domestic activity where it would be most likely that defendant<\/a> would promptly receive notice<\/a> if the summons where left there.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    Since Fettig used the family home for so many indications of a center of domestic activity, it is fair to conclude it is a center of her domestic activity. Also, the family home was the place where Fettig was most likely to receive notice<\/a> of the pendency of a suit. Fettig, working as a flight attendant jetting across the country is a quintessential example of a highly mobile person<\/a> splitting her time between two places. She maintained two places of usual abode.<\/span><\/p>\n

    There are fact<\/a> patterns in which serving a defendant<\/a> at her parent’s home when she lives elsewhere would not constitute sufficient service of process. See Lepeska v. Parley, 67 Wn. App. 548, 838 P.2d 437 (1992); Thoenes v. Tatro, 270 Or. 775, 529 p.2d 912 (1974).<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    This is an interesting, though not uncommon, situation that process servers need to be aware of and ensure that their notes support their declaration<\/a>\/affidavit<\/a>. The details of the process server’s conversation at the door with the defendant<\/a>’s brother would prove very important in maintaining the validity of the service.<\/span><\/p>\n

    When encountering a situation like this it is vital that the process server update the client with any details which would either support or threaten the service.<\/span><\/p>\n

    When determining whether or not a defendant<\/a> has more than one center of domestic activity is highly dependent upon the exact circumstances. A minor<\/a> change in the facts could force the court to invalidate a service instead of upholding it.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    SUMMARY Sheldon v. Fettig, et al<\/a>., 129 Wn.2d. 601 (1996) Facts Ms. Fettig and Ms. Sheldon were involved in a car accident in Washington State. Sheldon filed suit for damages<\/a> and served process at the home of Fettig’s parents in Seattle, where a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> was left with Fettig’s brother. Eight […]<\/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-2190","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2190","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=2190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2190\/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=2190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}