{"id":2257,"date":"2018-04-07T20:15:37","date_gmt":"2018-04-08T04:15:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2257"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:20:05","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:20:05","slug":"ps-102-chapter-7-article-1-instructed-service-thayer-vs-edmonds","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-7-an-introduction-to-defendant-instructed-service-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-7-article-1-instructed-service-thayer-vs-edmonds\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 7 – Article 1 – Instructed Service – Thayer vs Edmonds"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary<\/span><\/strong>
\nBARBARA THAYER, Respondent, v. LYNNE EDMONDS et al<\/a>., Petitioners – 8 Wn. App. 36 (1972)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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

This action<\/a> arose from an automobile collision. Seven (7) days before the statute of limitation ran, Plaintiff filed her complaint<\/a> against Defendant<\/a>. On the evening of the last day allowed for service (90 days after filing complaint<\/a>), Plaintiff’s process server located the residence of Defendant<\/a>’s parents. Shortly before 11:30 p.m., Defendant<\/a>’s teenage brother returned home. The process server discovered that the young man had just driven home from his sister’s house and that she had been up and about the house when he left.<\/span><\/p>\n

The process server was permitted to use the telephone to call Defendant<\/a>. At that time, Defendant<\/a> was in bed and almost asleep. The process server informed her that he had a summons and complaint<\/a> that had to be personally delivered to her before midnight. Defendant<\/a> then gave directions to her house but told him that she was not going to wait up and would not answer<\/a> the door. The process server told her that if she did not answer<\/a> his knock, he would leave the papers in the door. Defendant<\/a> responded, “That’s fine, we are not going to wait up.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The process server arrived at Defendant<\/a>’s house at 11:50 p.m. He knocked on the door and called to her. When he heard no answer<\/a>, he placed the papers between the doorjamb and left. The next morning at 6:30 a.m., she opened the door and personally obtained the papers<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Defendant<\/a> sought review of an order validating service of process. Appellate Court affirmed the order denying defendant<\/a>’s motion<\/a> to quash service of process.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    \n
  1. Was proper and timely service accomplished by leaving the papers under the doorjamb for the Defendant<\/a> to retrieve even though the 90 day rule had expired when she did so? Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

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

    Defendant<\/a>’s statement: “That’s fine, we are not going to wait up”, constituted an authorization to leave the papers at a place where they can be easily retrieved, rather than physically handing them to the defendant<\/a>. Such delivery constituted a substantial compliance with the statute.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    While RCW 4.28.080 does not specify that a defendant<\/a> may<\/a> authorize the process server to leave the papers at a place where they can be easily retrieved there is no public policy why a defendant<\/a> should not be able to authorize delivery in a manner not enumerated in the statute, if it suits their convenience and where the requirements of constitutional due process in all other aspects are fully met.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    This case<\/a> demonstrates the importance of being able to recount for the court exactly what transpired during a service, especially one as unusual as this one. Great care should be used in making a service of this type and good notes should be made immediately after the service is completed.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summary BARBARA THAYER, Respondent, v. LYNNE EDMONDS et al<\/a>., Petitioners – 8 Wn. App. 36 (1972) Facts This action<\/a> arose from an automobile collision. Seven (7) days before the statute of limitation ran, Plaintiff filed her complaint<\/a> against Defendant<\/a>. On the evening of the last day allowed for service (90 days after filing complaint<\/a>), Plaintiff’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2255,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2257","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2257","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=2257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2257\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}