Carmon v. Rose, 797 N.W.2d 336

Carmon filed suit in Minnehaha County alleging conspiracy to defraud in an oil and gas investment scheme.
Summons and complaint were served by substitute service under SDCL 15-6-4(e) on Rose’s wife at 2504 Little Hills Lane, Louisville, Kentucky.
Rose had separated from his wife in November 2008 and had not lived at 2504 Little Hills Lane since that time.
The trial court denied Rose’s motion to set aside the default judgment, holding that 2504 Little Hills Lane was Rose’s dwelling house for substitute service.
Carmon sought to enforce the default judgment; Rose challenged substitute service and/or the default judgment itself.
The appellate court affirmed, upholding the substitute service and the denial of relief from the default judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was substitute service valid under SDCL 15-6-4(e)?	Carmon argues service complied with SDCL 15-6-4(e) and left at Rose’s dwelling.	Rose contends he did not reside at 2504 Little Hills Lane, so service failed.	Substitute service valid; dwelling house requirements met.
Should the default judgment be set aside for lack of notice or meritorious defense?	Carmon maintains no abuse of discretion; service valid and defense exists.	Rose asserts lack of actual notice and meritorious defense warrant relief.	No abuse of discretion; court did not err in denying relief from default judgment.

Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 613 N.W.2d 542 (S.D. 2000) (validity and strict compliance of substitute service; notice concern)
Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 592 N.W.2d 596 (S.D. 1999) (substitute service strict compliance to ensure notice)
Edsill v. Schultz, 643 N.W.2d 760 (S.D. 2002) (strict compliance required for substitute service; notice risk minimized)
Grajczyk v. Tasca, 717 N.W.2d 624 (S.D. 2006) (prima facie validity of service; burden on proponent of service)
Johnson v. Bruflat, 186 N.W.2d 877 (S.D. 1922) (substitute service considerations)