Ashley D. Ramsay v. Starlett J. Custer
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 526
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Ramsay filed suit against Starlett Custer on July 29, 2009; service was attempted by mail with a signed return receipt (signature alleged to be unclear).
- Return on Service of Summons by Mail filed October 30, 2009, but the signature on the receipt was disputed.
- Trial Court granted default judgment on July 12, 2010 and scheduled a damages hearing; plaintiff mailed the order to the same address used for service.
- Defendant, through counsel, moved to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the lawsuit, alleging insufficiency of service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- The Trial Court granted the motion to vacate on September 29, 2011 and dismissed the complaint on October 10, 2011; Ramsay appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to vacate the default judgment for insufficiency of service | Ramsay argues court could not overturn valid service on record | Custer argues service did not comply with Rule 4 and thus default void | Yes; court had authority to vacate for void service |
| Whether valid service of process was effectuated under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4 | Service complied with applicable rules | Service by mail did not meet requirements; recipient contested | Service did not meet Rule 4 requirements; default void and vacated |
| Whether Custer waived objections to service by making a general appearance or other actions | No waiver; no evidence of general appearance by Brandon on Custer’s behalf | Communication between Brandon and Burger suggested appearance | No general appearance or waiver proven; defenses preserved |
| Whether dismissing the suit due to time-barred service was proper | (Not appealed) | Issue not further briefed on appeal | Affirmed as to service; issue not reached on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal Clothing Co. v. Holloway, 208 Tenn. 572, 347 S.W.2d 491 (1961) (execution of service by officer versus court ruling on service validity)
- Watson v. Garza, 316 S.W.3d 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (service must conform to Rule 4; knowledge alone not enough)
- Dixie Sav. Stores, Inc. v. Turner, 767 S.W.2d 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (general appearance waives some service and jurisdiction objections)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (special vs general appearance; when waiver of jurisdiction occurs)
- Overby v. Overby, 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970) (void service results in void judgment; valid grounds to vacate)
- Yousif v. Clark, 317 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (support for vacating based on invalid service)