Katherine M. Forsberg v. Weston T. Griepp
33742-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Feb 22, 2012: automobile accident involving Katherine Forsberg (plaintiff) and Weston T. "Taylor" Griepp (defendant).
- Feb 10, 2015: Forsberg filed a negligence suit; statute of limitations tolled 90 days under RCW 4.16.170 for service.
- Feb-April 2015: Deputy Stroisch delivered the summons and complaint to defendant's father at the Chewelah address (left with father); defendant later contested that he no longer lived there.
- April 30, 2015: Trial court granted ex parte permission to serve by mail at the Chewelah address; documents were mailed the same day.
- May 2015: Defendant moved for reconsideration and summary judgment arguing service was ineffective and the limitations period had run; trial court reconsidered, found mail authorization entered in error, granted summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delivery to defendant's father at Chewelah was effective substitute service ("house of usual abode") | Service at father's home was sufficient under liberal construction from Sheldon; accident report address justified reliance | Defendant had moved to Spokane in 2012 and did not use the Chewelah address as a residence; father’s house was not his usual abode | No — plaintiff failed to show Chewelah was defendant's house of usual abode; substitute service ineffective |
| Whether trial court properly authorized service by mail under RCW 4.28.100(2) | Plaintiff had exhausted reasonable efforts and evidence suggested defendant left the state or concealed himself; authorized by ex parte order | Plaintiff failed to show defendant left state or concealed himself with intent to avoid service — essential statutory requirement lacking | No — plaintiff did not present specific facts raising an inference of intent to avoid service; original mail authorization unsupported and court properly reconsidered |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in reconsidering its ex parte mail order | Plaintiff argued the original order should stand | Defendant argued the order was legally erroneous and supported reconsideration | No abuse — reconsideration appropriate to correct legal error; dismissal proper due to insufficient service |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wn.2d 601 (liberal construction of "house of usual abode" for substitute service)
- Jones v. Stebbins, 122 Wn.2d 471 (party seeking service by mail must clearly show statutory conditions)
- Pascua v. Heil, 126 Wn. App. 520 (explains elements required to authorize service by mail)
- Farmer v. Davis, 161 Wn. App. 420 (parental residence at time of accident does not alone establish second usual abode)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (summary judgment standard)