Shanta Steger, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Janice Turner, Respondent/cross-appellant
75647-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Steger sued Turner for injuries from a 2012 car accident and filed the complaint on July 14, 2015.
- Process servers attempted personal service on Turner 10 times between July 18 and August 9, 2015 without success.
- Steger used substituted service under RCW 46.64.040: she served the Washington Secretary of State and mailed the summons, complaint, notice of service, a signed declaration of compliance, and an attorney’s affidavit of due diligence to Turner by certified mail, return receipt requested.
- Turner’s husband signed the return receipt on August 26, 2015, and Turner does not dispute receiving the mailed documents.
- Turner moved for summary judgment arguing service was ineffective because Steger’s declaration of compliance lacked a date; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the suit as time-barred.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the undated but signed and mailed declaration substantially complied with the applicable declaration statute and did not defeat substituted service under RCW 46.64.040.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substituted service under RCW 46.64.040 was effective despite an undated declaration of compliance | Steger: declaration was signed, sworn under penalty of perjury, mailed with process before the limitations period expired; substantial compliance suffices | Turner: the declaration failed RCW 9A.72.085 because it lacked a date, so RCW 46.64.040's procedural requirements were not strictly met and service was invalid | Court held Steger substantially complied; absence of date did not defeat substituted service under RCW 46.64.040; reversal and remand for trial |
| Whether plaintiff needed to file affidavits with the court to perfect service | Steger: statute requires attaching affidavits to the process sent to defendant/Secretary of State, not filing with the court | Turner: relied on prior case law (Clay) to argue filing with court was required | Court held no filing with the court required under RCW 46.64.040; earlier reading in Clay has been superseded by cases interpreting the statute literally |
Key Cases Cited
- Heinzig v. Hwang, 189 Wn. App. 304 (holding strict procedural compliance with RCW 46.64.040 is required for substituted service)
- Keithly v. Sanders, 170 Wn. App. 683 (discussing strict compliance with substituted service statute)
- Omaits v. Raber, 56 Wn. App. 668 (service failure renders substituted service a nullity if statutory procedures not followed)
- Martin v. Triol, 121 Wn.2d 135 (defining due diligence as honest, reasonable efforts to locate defendant)
- Johnson v. King County, 148 Wn. App. 220 (substantial compliance with unsworn-statement requirements may be adequate)
- Manius v. Boyd, 111 Wn. App. 764 (certificate/statement technical defects do not always defeat proof of service)
- Clay v. Portik, 84 Wn. App. 553 (earlier holding that affidavits be filed with court to perfect service; discussed and limited)
- James v. McMurry, 195 Wn. App. 144 (clarifying that RCW 46.64.040 does not require filing affidavits with the court)