Joseph Meersman, Jr. v. Regions Morgan Keegan Trust
M2017-02043-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 9, 2018Background
- Meersman, a beneficiary of two trusts, sued Regions Morgan Keegan Trust and later added three former employees and successor trustee Michael Castellarin; initial complaint filed May 12, 2015.
- No summons was issued with the initial complaint; Meersman later mailed summonses and an amendment on March 1, 2016 by certified mail to attorney Lisa Helton (who previously represented related parties) and to Castellarin’s office.
- Return receipts were signed by third‑party mail handlers for Helton’s office and by Castellarin’s assistant Susan Oliver; Helton and Oliver each swore they were not authorized agents to accept service.
- Meersman took no further action for over a year; after a notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution he filed motions in June 2017 but did not obtain an alias summons within one year of the prior issuance.
- Trial court dismissed the suit for insufficient process, insufficient service of process, and lack of personal jurisdiction under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2), (4), and (5). Meersman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Regions and its former employees via attorney Helton (or her mail handler) was valid | Meersman: Helton (and her mail handler) had implied/subagent authority to accept service | Regions: Helton not appointed to receive service; mail handler not an authorized subagent | Service invalid; Helton and mail handler not authorized agents; attempted service ineffective |
| Whether service on Castellarin via his assistant Oliver was valid | Meersman: Oliver acted as liaison/agent and signed return receipt as "agent" | Castellarin: Oliver never appointed or authorized to accept service | Service invalid; no evidence Castellarin appointed Oliver as agent for service |
| Whether dismissal required a showing of intentional delay under Rule 4.01(3) | Meersman: Court must find intentional delay before dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction | Defendants: Rules 3 and 4 mandate timely service/reissuance regardless of intent | Intentional delay not required; failure to reissue process within one year mandates dismissal under Rules 3 and 4 |
| Whether court erred by not deciding statute of limitations issues | Meersman: Rule 3 time limits only matter for tolling statutes of limitations; court should address limitations | Defendants: Court lacked jurisdiction due to deficient service, so statute issues unnecessary | Court properly declined to reach limitations because jurisdiction never acquired due to insufficient service |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. 2010) (defendant’s attorney or mail recipient is not an agent for service absent principal’s assent; mail handlers do not qualify without more)
- Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc. v. Chelsea House Publishers, 621 S.W.2d 560 (Tenn. 1981) (jurisdictional motions may consider matters outside the pleadings without converting to summary judgment)
- McNeary v. Baptist Memorial Hosp., 360 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (Rules 3 and 4 require reissuance of process within one year; Rule 4.01(3) is irrelevant to timeliness requirement)
- Keicher v. Mysinger, 198 S.W.2d 330 (Tenn. 1946) (attorney’s general employment does not alone authorize acceptance of service for client)