{"id":2278,"date":"2018-04-08T13:14:12","date_gmt":"2018-04-08T21:14:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2278"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:09:49","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:09:49","slug":"ps-102-chapter-10-article-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-10-an-introduction-to-who-may-serve-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-10-article-2\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 10 – Article 2 – Who May Serve – Scanlan vs Townsend"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary
\n<\/strong>Scanlan vs Townsend
\n<\/strong>Court of Appeals Division I
\n<\/strong>No. 69106-6-I<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Theresa Scanlan and Karlin Townsend were involved in a car accident on October 28, 2008. One day before the statute of limitations<\/a> ran out, Scanlan filed a personal injury action<\/a> against Townsend. Therefore the statute was tolled for 90 days until January 25, 2012<\/span><\/p>\n

On November 8, 2011, Scanlan hired ABC Legal<\/a> Services to locate and serve Townsend. ABC located two addresses, one in Puyallup and one in Vancouver. However, due to the various report dates and sources of the address information<\/a>, it was not clear as to which was Townsend’s current address.<\/span><\/p>\n

On December 8, 2011, an ABC process server attempted service at the Puyallup address. The resident there informed the process server that he didn’t know Townsend and Townsend didn’t live there.<\/span><\/p>\n

On December 21, 2011, a process server went to the Vancouver address. The server made an abode service on Townsend by leaving the summons and complaint<\/a> with “John Doe<\/a>, co-resident\/father.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Three months later, Townsend filed a motion<\/a> to dismiss the lawsuit<\/a> for lack of service. Townsend claimed she had not resided at the Vancouver address since 1991 and, at the time of service, was residing in Auburn.<\/span><\/p>\n

In response, Scanlan’s process server provided an amended declaration<\/a> of service which included details of his conversation with the John Doe<\/a> at the Vancouver address. Following is a portion of the amended declaration<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

On the 21st day of December, 2011, at approximately 4:40 PM, I arrived at the address of 2124 NE 155TH Street, VANCOUVER, Clark County<\/a>, WA 98686. I knocked on the front door and a gray-haired white male . . . opened the door. … I asked him if Karlin Townsend was there and he replied she was not. I recall saying I had some paperwork for her and asking him if she lived there and he responded] that she was staying there. He was very talkative and friendly, and I do believe I recall him also mentioning Karlin came back to live with us. I told him that I had some paperwork for her and this was the address I was given, I then asked if I could leave the documents with him. He replied he would take the documents and make sure she got them when she gets back. When I asked his name, he put out his hand to shake, said he was her father…. I shook his hand as I gave him my name, and then left.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Scanlan argued that, based on the father’s statement, an effective abode service had been made and that Townsend’s motion<\/a> to dismiss should be dismissed. In the alternative, Scanlan requested the court conduct<\/a> an evidentiary hearing to allow the parties to engage in discovery<\/a>. The court granted the request to allow the parties to conduct<\/a> discovery<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

During her deposition<\/a>, Townsend admitted her father delivered a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> to her at the end of December, 2011. Note that this was prior to the end of the 90 day tolling period.<\/span><\/p>\n

Following discovery<\/a>, Scanlan filed an amended response to the motion<\/a> to dismiss for lack of service. Scanlan argued the record established Townsend’s father agreed to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> to Townsend and that he personally served her before December 30, 2011. In addition to Townsend’s deposition<\/a> testimony, Scanlan pointed to the amended declaration<\/a> of service that states Townsend’s father agreed to “take the documents and make sure [Townsend] got them,” and the notice<\/a> of appearance<\/a> Townsend filed on December 30, 2011. Again, this was prior to the end of the 90 day tolling period.<\/span><\/p>\n

Townsend’s father provided a declaration<\/a> in support of the motion<\/a> to dismiss. It included the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

I recall specifically telling the process server that Karlin was my daughter and that she did not reside at this address. My recollection is that I told the process server that my daughter had her own residence in the Greater Seattle area.<\/em><\/p>\n

I am aware of a declaration<\/a> from the Process Server that states that I may<\/a> have indicated that Karlin had “come back to live with us”. I never made such a statement. In fact<\/a> Karlin had recently purchased her own home in Auburn a few months previous to my conversation with the Process Server and, in any event, has not lived at my address in Vancouver, WA for a long time before the subject accident of October 28, 2008.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Townsend argued her father’s declaration<\/a> established service of process was not effective because “[t]here can be no question that the Vancouver, WA address was NOT the usual abode of Defendant<\/a> Karlin Townsend (now Emerson) at the time of purported service.” Townsend also argued that her father’s “accidental service” on her did not constitute valid service of process.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the hearing on the motion<\/a> to dismiss, Townsend’s attorney stipulated that her father delivered a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> to Townsend within the 90-day tolling period. Townsend argued service of the summons and complaint<\/a> by her father was “fortuitous” and did not comply with the statutory proof of service requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n

The trial granted the motion<\/a> to dismiss the lawsuit<\/a> for lack of service. The order states, in pertinent part: “Defendant<\/a>’s deposition<\/a> testimony that her father gave her the summons and complaint<\/a> is insufficient proof of service.”<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    \n
  1. Was a proper abode service made by the process server at the Vancouver Address? No<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Must a process server have a contractual relationship with the plaintiff in order to accomplish service? No<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Did Townsend’s father meet the qualifications of a process server? Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Did Townsend’s father’s delivery of the summons and complaint<\/a> to her amount to an effective personal service<\/a>? Yes<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

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

    The Court of Appeals held Townsend had been effectively served and reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal<\/a>. The case<\/a> was remanded back to the trial court.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    It is not disputed that Townsend’s father delivered a copy of the summons and complaint<\/a> to her before the end of the 90 tolling period. It also is not disputed that her father qualifies as a process server under the laws and court rules of the State of Washington.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The court found no requirement that the person<\/a> who affects service must have a contractual agreement with the plaintiff to serve the defendant<\/a>. Although the father’s service was “fortuitous” it still met the requirements and was valid.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Although Townsend’s father did not sign or provide a proof of service, Townsend’s own deposition<\/a> testimony established proof of service, i.e. that she had received the documents from a person<\/a> who qualified as a process server prior to the expiration of the 90 day tolling period.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    This case<\/a> is somewhat similar to Brown-Edwards vs Powell which is also found summarized in PS 102. As in that case<\/a>, the process server here was extremely fortunate that the defendant<\/a>’s father delivered the documents to her before the tolling period expired.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Note that the process server’s and father’s recollections of events were quite different from each other. Had the defendant<\/a> herself not admitted under oath (during a deposition<\/a>) as to when she received the documents from her father it is entirely likely the Court of Appeals would have upheld the trial court’s dismissal<\/a> of the case<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    A careful examination of the process server’s amended declaration<\/a> finds a couple of important issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

    First, the server didn’t ask the father if the defendant<\/a> lived there with him. Establishing residency of both the person<\/a> being served and the person<\/a> with whom the documents are being left is vital to a proper abode style service.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Second, if the father was “talkative and chatty” then why didn’t the server get the father’s name instead of referring to him as “John Doe<\/a>” in the declaration<\/a> of service? Although the server asked for the name he allowed the father to control the conversation and get away without providing his name.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summary Scanlan vs Townsend Court of Appeals Division I No. 69106-6-I Facts Theresa Scanlan and Karlin Townsend were involved in a car accident on October 28, 2008. One day before the statute of limitations<\/a> ran out, Scanlan filed a personal injury action<\/a> against Townsend. Therefore the statute was tolled for 90 days until January 25, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2274,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2278","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2278","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=2278"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2278\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}