{"id":2194,"date":"2018-04-07T09:26:37","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T17:26:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2194"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:17:46","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:17:46","slug":"ps-102-chapter-2-article-5-abode-service-upheld-wichert-vs-cardwell","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-5-abode-service-upheld-wichert-vs-cardwell\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 2 – Article 5 – Abode Service Upheld – Wichert vs Cardwell"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary<\/strong><\/span>
\nWichert v. Cardwell, 117 Wn.2d 148, P.2d 858 (1991)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Plaintiffs Wichert filed a summons and complaint<\/a> for a personal injury action<\/a>. Plaintiff’s process server took the summons to the residence of defendants Cardwell. Defendants were out of state when service was made. The residence was occupied by Cardwell’s 26 year old daughter who had stayed there the night before process was served. The daughter had a key to the residence but had her own apartment, was self supporting and had no personal possession at the residence. The daughter infrequently stayed over at defendant<\/a>’s residence.<\/span><\/p>\n

The process server was greeted by defendant<\/a>’s daughter and he informed her he was there to serve a summons and complaint<\/a> on the defendants. A discussion took place as to whether or not she was a suitable person<\/a> to be served. Eventually, she took possession of the papers. Defendants received the summons and complaint<\/a> and a notice<\/a> of appearance<\/a> was entered.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Superior Court dismissed plaintiff’s suit on the basis of defective service. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal<\/a>. Supreme Court reverses the court of Appeals and the trial court.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Does service upon a nonresident who is in possession of the defendant<\/a>’s usual abode meet the requirements of substitute service? Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Service upon a defendant<\/a>’s adult child who is an overnight resident in the house of defendant<\/a>’s usual abode, and then the sole occupant thereof, is reasonably calculated to accomplish notice<\/a> to the defendant<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The meaning of “resident therein” refers to defendant<\/a>’s usual place of abode. The terms “reside”, “residing”, “resident”, and “residence” are elastic and should be interpreted within the context or purpose of the statute. The purpose of statutes which prescribe the methods of service of process is to provide due process. Compliance with due process depends on whether the methods employed for service are “desirous of actually informing absentee” and reasonably calculated to accomplish notice<\/a> to the defendant<\/a>. (The Mullane test).<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Just because someone answers the door at the target’s residence does not mean they are a co-resident and that leaving the documents with him or her will result in a valid service on the target. It is up to the process server to ask questions and determine if the person<\/a> on the other side of the door can be considered a resident. As seen above the server in this case<\/a> engaged the daughter in a discussion to determine if she was a suitable person<\/a> to leave the papers with and at the end of that discussion determined that she was.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, it is important to remember that these decisions are fact<\/a> specific. A minor<\/a> change in the circumstances may<\/a> cause<\/a> the court to rule quite differently than it did here.<\/span><\/p>\n

The process server in this case<\/a> was fortunate the court took a liberal view of the abode service language in the law<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Summary Wichert v. Cardwell, 117 Wn.2d 148, P.2d 858 (1991) Facts Plaintiffs Wichert filed a summons and complaint<\/a> for a personal injury action<\/a>. Plaintiff’s process server took the summons to the residence of defendants Cardwell. Defendants were out of state when service was made. The residence was occupied by Cardwell’s 26 year old daughter who […]<\/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-2194","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2194","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=2194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2194\/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=2194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}