Scanlan v. Townsend
336 P.3d 1155
Wash.2014Background
- Car accident in 2008; Scanlan filed suit against Townsend in October 2011.
- Process server attempted service at two addresses; one resident at Puyallup denied knowing Townsend; process server later left papers at a Vancouver address with Townsend’s father on December 21, 2011.
- Townsend’s father later handed the summons and complaint to Townsend within the statute of limitations; Townsend testified she received the papers from her father around late Dec. 2011 or early Jan. 2012.
- Townsend moved to dismiss for lack of service; trial court granted dismissal, finding the father’s delivery to Townsend insufficient proof of service.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the father was competent to effect personal service and that Townsend’s deposition established proof of service; this Court granted review.
- Supreme Court considered whether secondhand, hand‑to‑hand delivery by a nonparty (who initially received papers at the residence) constituted valid personal service under RCW 4.28.080(15) and CR 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scanlan) | Defendant's Argument (Townsend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service was proper before statute ran | Father (nonparty) personally delivered summons to Townsend within limitations; CR 4 allows any competent nonparty to serve | Substitute service was defective because Vancouver address was not Townsend’s usual abode; thus father couldn’t be a valid server to cure defective service | Held: Valid personal service. Father was competent under CR 4 and personally delivered the papers; Townsend’s deposition and counsel’s stipulation established proof of service |
| Whether secondhand/handoff delivery can satisfy personal service | Secondhand hand‑to‑hand delivery by a competent nonparty satisfies personal service requirements | Secondhand delivery should be treated as defective substitute service; actual notice alone is insufficient | Held: Distinguishes substitute‑service cases; Brown‑Edwards controls — secondhand personal service is permissible when the nonparty meets CR 4 qualifications and there is proof of delivery |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Edwards v. Powell, 144 Wn. App. 109 (Wash. App. 2008) (upheld secondhand, neighbor‑to‑defendant hand‑to‑hand delivery as valid personal service where server met CR 4 qualifications)
- Gerean v. Martin-Joven, 108 Wn. App. 963 (Wash. App. 2001) (held substitute service insufficient where hired process server’s act merely set in motion events that produced actual notice)
- Roth v. Nash, 19 Wn.2d 731 (Wash. 1944) (interpreting predecessor to CR 4(c) to permit any competent nonparty over age limit to serve process)
- Jones v. Stebbins, 122 Wn.2d 471 (Wash. 1993) (failure to return proof of service does not invalidate service or deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Hamill v. Brooks, 32 Wn. App. 150 (Wash. App. 1982) (defendant’s deposition or attorney admission can establish time of service and constitute best evidence of receipt)