300 Kate Street Partners, LLC v. NIS Trading, Inc. D/B/A NIS Construction, M2020-01253-COA-R3-CV

Plaintiff 300 Kate Street Partners sued Texas corporation NIS Trading, Inc. (doing business as NIS Construction) for breach of contract and related claims after fire repair work allegedly was not completed.
NIS’s Tennessee registered agent was United States Corporation Agents, Inc. (USCA). The original certified mailing was returned unserved; an alias summons was mailed Aug. 13, 2019.
The return filed with the court included USPS tracking printouts stating delivery to “an individual” at the address on Aug. 15, 2019, but no traditional green card return receipt with a legible signature identifying the recipient or showing agent/addressee status.
Kate Street moved for and obtained a default judgment; the chancery court awarded damages and attorney’s fees after NIS did not appear.
Six months later NIS moved under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(3) to set aside the default as void for ineffective service. The trial court denied relief after considering later-obtained USPS information; NIS appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held the record at the time of the default lacked the signed return receipt required by Rules 4.03/4.04/4.05, so service was not shown and the default judgment was void; the court reversed, vacated the judgment, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certified-mail service on the registered agent satisfied Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4 to support a default judgment	Mailing to the correct registered-agent entity/address sufficed; delivery confirmation is enough	Service by mail requires a return receipt showing personal acceptance by defendant or authorized agent (signed green card); that signature was absent	The court held Rule 4 requires a return receipt evidencing personal acceptance; the record at the time of default lacked such a signature, so the default was void
Whether the trial court could rely on post-default USPS evidence (internal signature image and affidavit) when evaluating a Rule 60.02(3) challenge	Plaintiff urged the trial court could consider later-obtained USPS documentation to prove delivery	For a Rule 60.02(3) motion attacking jurisdiction, review is limited to the face of the judgment and the record that existed at the time the judgment was entered; post-default proofs are immaterial	The court ruled the trial court should not have relied on post-default evidence; the face of the record did not show the required signed return receipt, so the judgment was void

Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for relief from final judgment discussed)
Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 60.02(3) review limited to the record that produced the judgment; de novo review of personal jurisdiction)
Hussey v. Woods, 538 S.W.3d 476 (Tenn. 2017) (movant must show a judgment is void by clear and convincing evidence)
Ramsay v. Custer, 387 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (service that fails Rule 4 is void and cannot support a default)
Watson v. Garza, 316 S.W.3d 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (service of process must strictly comply with Rule 4)
Rubio v. Precision Aerodynamics, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (registered-agent corporations may use subagents; service to registered agent is service to corporation)
Hood v. Jenkins, 432 S.W.3d 814 (Tenn. 2013) (distinguishing void from voidable judgments)