Schulz v. Doeppe
182 A.3d 1246
| Me. | 2018Background
- Wife (Schulz) filed protection-from-abuse complaint; husband (Doeppe) fled Maine to Florida to evade service, leaving wife and child behind.
- Schulz filed for divorce including parental-rights and support claims; sheriff and attorney efforts failed to locate or effect service on Doeppe.
- District Court granted service by alternate means: publication once weekly for three weeks in the Lewiston Sun Journal; court did not require mailing or email to Doeppe or notice to his attorney.
- Doeppe did not appear; court entered default divorce judgment awarding Schulz sole parental rights and child support.
- Doeppe later filed a Rule 60(b) motion (asserting the judgment was void for inadequate service) admitting he had evaded service and declined to authorize his attorney to accept service. Trial court denied relief, finding Doeppe willfully evaded service and had actual notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schulz) | Defendant's Argument (Doeppe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service by publication without additional notice (mail/email/notice to counsel) complied with M.R. Civ. P. 4(g) | Service by publication was authorized after due diligence; Rule 4(g) requires mailing only if defendant's address is known | Publication alone insufficient; Rule 4(g) and due process required additional steps to notify him of the court's order for alternate service | Court: Rule 4(g) does not require mailing when defendant’s address is unknown; publication alone satisfied Rule 4(g) |
| Whether publication-only service violated due process by failing to trigger the response period | Schulz: additional notice unnecessary where defendant evaded service and had actual notice of the complaint | Doeppe: lack of email/letter to counsel deprived him of constitutionally adequate notice to protect his rights | Court: No due process violation — Doeppe had actual notice and deliberately evaded service; extra steps would likely be futile; overall procedures met fair play and substantial justice |
| Whether the divorce judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction due to inadequate service | Schulz: judgment is valid because service was reasonably calculated and Doeppe had actual knowledge | Doeppe: judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) because service was constitutionally inadequate | Court: Judgment not void; denial of Rule 60(b) relief affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting service by publication | Schulz: court properly found due diligence and evasion, so publication was appropriate | Doeppe: (did not press abuse-of-discretion on appeal) | Court: Even if raised, grant of publication was within discretion given diligence and evasion |
Key Cases Cited
- Haskell v. Haskell, 160 A.3d 1176 (Me. 2017) (discusses evasion of service and credibility of service-related assertions)
- Gaeth v. Deacon, 964 A.2d 621 (Me. 2009) (service by publication is a last resort; describes purposes of service)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due-process standard: notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940) (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice guide jurisdictional due-process analysis)
- TD Banknorth, N.A. v. Hawkins, 5 A.3d 1042 (Me. 2010) (refusal to allow defendants to benefit from deliberate evasion of process)
- Phillips v. Johnson, 834 A.2d 938 (Me. 2003) (standards for alternate service when plaintiff shows due diligence and defendant evaded process)
Judgment affirmed.