In Re Patel
242 P.3d 1015
Wyo.2010Background
- CWCapital obtained a money judgment against Piyush Patel, who owned all stock in P&P, Inc., and 50% of PJP Enterprises, Inc., and served as president of both.
- Patel was not present at work or home when writs of execution were attempted; sheriff served the writs on Kingston, the registered agent for PJP Enterprises, Inc.
- Kingston was the law partner of Graves, the registered agent for P&P, Inc., at the time service was made.
- Patel filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2009, later converted to Chapter 7 with a trustee appointed.
- The trustee in bankruptcy contested CWCapital's perfection of its security interests in the stock of both corporations, prompting certification to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is service on the registered agent valid when a corporate officer is not present? | CWCapital argues service on the registered agent suffices under § 1-19-103. | Patel contends service on a registered agent is only valid where no corporate officer exists. | Yes; service on the registered agent is valid when a corporate officer is unavailable. |
| Is service on a law partner of the registered agent valid under § 1-19-103? | CWCapital contends a law partner should be treated as an agent of the registered agent. | Patel argues a law partner is not the resident agent and cannot be served. | No; service on a law partner is not valid to perfect a security interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. State, 2003 WY 46, 67 P.3d 536 (Wy. 2003) (specificity of statutory interpretation governs service of process)
- U.S. Aviation, Inc. v. Wyo. Avionics, Inc., 664 P.2d 121 (Wyo. 1983) (registered agent concept bridging service and corporate presence)
- Lance Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 101 P.3d 899 (Wyo. 2004) (statutory interpretation framework in Wyoming)
- Hanover Compression, LP v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 196 P.3d 781 (Wyo. 2008) (ambiguity and statutory construction principles)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 219 P.3d 128 (Wy. 2009) (contextual reading of tax and revenue statutes)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 154 P.3d 331 (Wy. 2007) (absurdity and statutory interpretation limitations)
- Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney Gen., 221 P.3d 306 (Wy. 2009) (statutory construction and interpretive framework)