Regions Bank v. Chas A. Sandford
M2015-02215-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- Regions Bank sued Chas A. Sandford on a sworn account for $153,274.13 in Williamson County Chancery Court.
- Multiple personal service attempts failed; the bank then sent an alias summons and complaint by certified mail to Sandford’s residential address.
- The certified-mail return receipt was returned stamped "Return to Sender," "Unclaimed," and "Unable to Forward."
- The bank filed proof of service under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(11) and moved for default judgment; the bank mailed Sandford a copy of the default motion to the same address.
- Sandford filed a response “by special appearance” contesting service of process; he did not appear at the default-judgment hearing and the trial court entered default judgment for the bank.
- On appeal, the court vacated the default judgment, holding Rule 4.04(10) bars default judgments unless the return receipt shows personal acceptance by the defendant (the record showed only "unclaimed").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment may be entered where certified mail was returned “unclaimed.” | Certified mail sufficed; past cases distinguishable; defendant’s filing constituted an appearance curing service defect. | Rule 4.04(10) forbids default judgment absent a return receipt showing personal acceptance; “unclaimed” is insufficient. | Vacated default judgment; “unclaimed” return receipt cannot support default. |
| Whether service failed because summons not served within 90 days after issuance (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03). | N/A (bank asserted service adequate). | Service was untimely under the rule. | Pretermitted after resolving primary mail-service issue. |
| Whether process server failed to promptly file proof of service as required by Rule 4.03. | N/A. | Proof was not timely filed, invalidating service. | Pretermitted. |
| Whether entry of default judgment based on “unclaimed” certified mail violated due process. | Defendant had actual notice and engaged; no due-process violation. | Lack of proper service deprived court of personal jurisdiction and violated due process. | Pretermitted after resolving Rule 4.04(10) issue (court’s rule-based holding disposed of constitutional claim). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Looper, 86 S.W.3d 189 (Tenn. 2000) (standard of review for default-judgment appeals)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- First Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A., 489 S.W.3d 369 (Tenn. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion explained)
- Garland v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co., 658 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1983) (service of process provides notice)
- Haley v. Univ. of Tenn.-Knoxville, 188 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2006) (service of process and personal jurisdiction)
- Watson v. Garza, 316 S.W.3d 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (actual notice does not substitute for rule-compliant service)
- Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. 2010) (actual notice is not a substitute for required service)
- State ex rel. Barger v. City of Huntsville, 63 S.W.3d 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (raising insufficiency of service preserves defense despite participation)