Henriette M. Fisher v. Chandranita Ankton, W2016-02089-COA-R3-CV

Fisher sued Ankton for negligent operation of a vehicle (complaint filed June 13, 2012). Multiple attempted services and three summonses were issued; personal service attempts failed.
Third summons: issued for private process service (to IRS address) after earlier certified-mail attempts; private server couldn't locate Ankton and certified mailings produced two signed receipts by third parties and one certified mailing to the alleged residence returned “unclaimed.”
Trial court dismissed the case (April 24, 2013) for failure to timely return summons and intentional delay; this Court reversed on statute-of-limitations tolling in Fisher I but did not decide service validity.
Upon remand, Ankton filed a second motion to dismiss (Jan. 28, 2016) raising insufficiency of process/service and statute-of-limitations defenses; at the hearing she argued for the first time that the mailed summons was not a “certified copy” as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(10).
The trial court granted dismissal, finding certified-mail service ineffective because the mailed summons was not a certified copy and because signatures on other receipts did not establish authorized agents; Fisher appealed.
The Court of Appeals held Ankton did not waive the defense of insufficient service generally (she had not participated in discovery or answered), but the specific “lack of certified copy” argument was waived for failure to plead facts as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03; reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certified-mail service (mail returned unclaimed) was effective under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04	Fisher: mailing to alleged residence returned unclaimed is sufficient under Rule 4.04(11); original summons mailed meets rule requirements	Ankton: the mailed document was not a certified copy as required by Rule 4.04(10)/(11), so service by certified mail was ineffective	Court: did not decide substantive validity; held Ankton waived the "lack of certified copy" argument because it was not pleaded with factual detail per Rule 8.03
Whether Ankton waived insufficiency-of-service defense by delay in raising it	Fisher: Ankton waited years and thus waived the defense	Ankton: she did not participate in the suit and first motion raised insufficiency; later factual developments justified the second motion	Court: no waiver for general insufficiency defense—Ankton’s delay did not waive the defense because she filed a timely initial motion and did not otherwise participate in the case

Fair v. Cochran, 418 S.W.3d 542 (Tenn. 2013) (rule on tolling and relation-back of commencement regarding defective returns)
Watson v. Garza, 316 S.W.3d 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (actual knowledge does not cure defective service; participation in litigation can estop service objections)
Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. 2010) (Rule 4.04 to be strictly construed)
Barker v. Heekin Can Co., 804 S.W.2d 442 (Tenn. 1991) (Rule 8.03 requires pleading facts supporting affirmative defenses; mere notice is insufficient)
Allgood v. Gateway Health Sys., 309 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (failure to plead factual basis for insufficiency-of-service defense in initial responsive pleading or amend when facts known results in waiver)
Faulks v. Crowder, 99 S.W.3d 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (insufficiency of service can be waived by conduct or by filing an answer that omits the defense)
McNeary v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 360 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (court may consider matters outside pleadings when deciding motions challenging service)
Estate of McFerren v. Infinity Transp., LLC, 197 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn. Workers Comp. Panel 2006) (Rule 4.03 mandatory requirements should be enforced)