957 N.E.2d 1002
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Norris received a loan from Personal Finance on April 15, 2008 and listed his home address and his parents as references; he never notified a change of address.
- Personal Finance filed a small-claims notice of claim on March 17, 2010; a sheriff delivered the notice to Norris's parents' Middleton address and also mailed it to the same address by first-class mail.
- Norris did not appear at the March 31, 2010 hearing; the court entered default judgment against him.
- Norris moved for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(6), arguing improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court held service to Norris's parents’ address was adequate under Trial Rule 4.16 and denied relief from judgment.
- On appeal, Norris challenged the application of Trial Rule 4.16 to his parents; the court agreed and reversed, vacating the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service to Norris's parents satisfied TR 4.1/TR 4.16 and conferred personal jurisdiction | Norris | Norris | Service to parents not valid; lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- LaPalme v. Romero, 621 N.E.2d 1102 (Ind. 1993) (parents cannot authorize service absent express authority; TR 4.16 applies to those with authority to accept service)
- Hill v. Ramey, 744 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (knowledge of suit does not cure defective service)
- King v. United Leasing, Inc., 765 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (default judgments disfavored; due process requires proper service)