2018 ME 49
Me.2018Background
- In Feb 2016 Schulz filed a protection-from-abuse complaint against her husband, Hendrik Doeppe; Doeppe fled Maine to Florida to evade service.
- Schulz filed for divorce in April 2016 including parental-rights and child-support claims; multiple efforts to locate and serve Doeppe (sheriff, certified mail to counsel, inquiries of landlords/family) failed.
- The court authorized service by publication in the Lewiston Sun Journal after finding Schulz had diligently searched and Doeppe was evading service; the order did not require additional notices (e.g., email or mail to counsel).
- Doeppe did not appear; the court entered default divorce judgment awarding Schulz sole parental rights and child support.
- Doeppe later moved to set aside the judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)/(b)(4), arguing service by publication alone (without extra notice such as email or notice to counsel) violated M.R. Civ. P. 4 and due process.
- The trial court found Doeppe had intentionally evaded service and denied relief; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Schulz's Argument | Doeppe's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service by publication without additional notice (e.g., email or mailing to counsel) complied with M.R. Civ. P. 4(g) | Rule 4(g) does not require personal delivery of the court's order when defendant's address is unknown; publication was authorized after diligent efforts | Publication alone was insufficient; the order granting alternate service should have been mailed or otherwise directly delivered to trigger response time | Court: Rule 4(g) requires mailing only if defendant's address is known; no requirement to personally deliver order when address unknown; publication permitted |
| Whether publication-only service without supplemental notice violated due process | Finality and plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief after diligent efforts justify publication; extra notice likely futile given evasion | Failure to require email or notice to counsel deprived him of process because it prevented effective opportunity to respond | Court: No due-process violation—balancing shows minimal benefit from extra steps given Doeppe’s deliberate evasion and actual notice of the underlying claim |
| Whether the divorce judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction due to allegedly inadequate service | Schulz: court acquired jurisdiction via authorized alternate service after due diligence | Doeppe: judgment void because service method failed constitutional and rule-based standards | Court: Judgment not void; M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) relief denied because service adequate under rule and due process given circumstances |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting service by publication (alternative argument) | Court acted within discretion based on diligent search and evasion | Doeppe challenges adequacy of measures taken before authorizing publication | Court: Although not central to appeal, granting publication was within trial court’s discretion given facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaeth v. Deacon, 964 A.2d 621 (Me. 2009) (publication is last resort; service supplies notice and jurisdiction)
- In re Richard E., 978 A.2d 217 (Me. 2009) (standard of review for service and commencement issues)
- Haskell v. Haskell, 160 A.3d 1176 (Me. 2017) (evasion of service undermines later service challenges)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due-process standard for notice—reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940) (fair play and substantial justice standard)
- TD Banknorth, N.A. v. Hawkins, 5 A.3d 1042 (Me. 2010) (courts refuse to reward defendant evading service)
- Phillips v. Johnson, 834 A.2d 938 (Me. 2003) (standard for granting service by publication after due diligence)
Griffin v. Bierman, 941 A.2d 475 (Md. 2008) (balancing state/giver-of-notice interests against individual notice interests)
Judgment affirmed.