 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kaur v. Halter2/14/2000
. Thus, the Halters can rebut the facially valid service by showing through clear and convincing evidence that the 422 M Street Northeast address was not Douglas or Frances Halter's usual abode, or that Darla Pomber was not then residing there. Because we find the issue of whether Pomber was a resident of the service address dispositive, we do not address the Halters' alternative argument that the address was not Mr. Halter's "usual abode."
The evidence indicates that Darla Pomber, the person who accepted service, did not reside at the 422 M Street Northeast address. The meaning of "resident" under RCW 4.28.080(15) is unambiguous; for purposes of the statute, "'resident' must be given its ordinary meaning -- a person is resident if the person is actually living in the particular home." Salts v. Estes, 133 Wn.2d 160, 170-71, 943 P.2d 275 (1997) (holding service of process on person who was temporarily in defendant's home to feed dogs and take in mail was insufficient for substitute service of process).
In Wichert v. Cardwell, the Supreme Court held that service upon an adult child staying overnight at her parents' home was sufficient service upon the defendant parents. 117 Wn.2d 148, 812 P.2d 858 (1991). But the Salts court distinguished Wichert in part because the daughter accepting service in that case had slept in the defendants' home the night before accepting service. Salts, 133 Wn.2d at 169. Here, Darla Pomber did not sleep at the 422 M Street Northeast address on the night before or after she accepted service. Pomber was not "actually living" at that address when she accepted service.
Finally, Kaur argues that a plaintiff may reasonably rely on a person's representations in concluding that the person accepting service of process resides at a particular location. She relies on Woodruff v. Spence, 88 Wn. App. 565, 945 P.2d 745 (1997). In Woodruff, the process server served process at the defendant's address on a man who claimed that he also resided there. 88 Wn. App. at 567-68. The court upheld the service, holding that the defendant did not carry his burden of proving that the man accepting service did not reside at the address: {The defendant} did not call his wife or any of his employees who were there to corroborate his testimony that no person fitting the description of the person allegedly served resided then at his property. And though he asserted he would have responded had he received process, evidence of defaults entered against him in numerous other cases (both before and after this one) cast doubt on the truthfulness of that claim. We agree with the trial court that {the defendant} did not meet his burden. 88 Wn. App. at 571.
Unlike in Woodruff, here the Halters have carried their burden of proving that Darla Pomber did not reside at the 422 M Street Northeast address. Thus, Kaur did not effect substitute service on either Mr. or Mrs. Halter and the trial court did not err in dismissing the case on summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|