R.B.O. v. Priests of the Sacred Heart
2011 S.D. 86
S.D.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, former students of St. Joseph’s Indian Mission School on the Lower Brule Reservation, allege childhood sexual abuse by Priests of the Sacred Heart (PSH) personnel and liability of related church entities.
- PSH is a Wisconsin-based religious organization; service attempts began with Milwaukee County Sheriff delivering process to Milczarski in July 2010.
- SD laws were amended in 2010 to restrict recovery in childhood sexual abuse cases unless the perpetrator caused the act.
- Plaintiffs later used a private process server to serve Nagle, the PSH registered agent, but the documents directed to the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, Inc. and not PSH.
- The summons DDS served on Nagle was not directed to PSH, creating an issue whether service complied with SDCL 15-6-4(d)(1) and the overall service requirements.
- The circuit court held substantial compliance and that service on PSH complied with SDCL 15-2-31, but the appellate decision reverses, finding improper service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Milczarski was an authorized recipient under 15-6-4(d)(1) | Plaintiffs contend Milczarski’s service was effective | PSH argues Milczarski was not authorized to receive service | Service on Milczarski not valid |
| Whether service on Nagle complied with 15-6-4(d)(1) given incorrect party caption | Plaintiffs claim substantial compliance | PSH contends noncompliance due to misdirection | Not substantial compliance; service invalid |
| Whether substantial compliance doctrine applies to this case | Actual notice plus substantial compliance should suffice | Statutory requirements must be followed | Doctrine inapplicable; strict compliance required |
| Whether 15-2-31 extension can salvage improper service | Extension could apply if service timely made | Misservice cannot be cured by 60-day extension | Inapplicable; service not properly effected |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Truesdell, 574 N.W.2d 629 (S.D. 1998) (actual notice plus substantial compliance not enough without proper recipient)
- White Eagle v. City of Fort Pierre, 606 N.W.2d 926 (S.D. 2000) (substantial compliance not applicable where statute not followed to carry out its intent)
- Spade v. Branum, 643 N.W.2d 765 (S.D. 2002) (service of process principles and due process concerns)
- Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208 (U.S. (1962)) (due process and notice requirements in service of process)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (statutory notice requirements and service principles)
- Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas, S.A., 51 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1995) (non-SD authorities cited for service-of-process principles)