Sieg v. International Environmental Management, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 847
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- IEM obtained a Missouri certificate of authority in 1996; its initial registered agent was The Corporation Company.
- IEM was administratively dissolved on August 31, 1998 for failure to file an annual report.
- In 2000, IEM changed its registered agent from The Corporation Company to John S. Pletz.
- In 2006, IEM obtained a second certificate of authority listing United Corporate Services (UCS) as registered agent; UCS filed address changes for IEM.
- IEM was administratively dissolved again in 2007 under the second certificate of authority; CT Corporation later updated the first certificate’s agent, but CT did not handle the second certificate.
- In August 2009, Siegs served UCS with a summons; UCS did not forward to IEM; IEM did not defend, and default judgment was entered in 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on the registered agent complied with Missouri law | Siegs argue service on UCS was valid under Rule 54.13(b)(3) and §351.594 despite dissolution. | IEM argues service invalid because post-dissolution, only the last agent or other designated methods apply; UCS’ authority ended with dissolution. | Service on UCS was valid under Missouri law. |
| Whether service of process violated due process | Siegs contend due process was satisfied because service was reasonably calculated to notify IEM. | IEM argues due process requires actual knowledge of service; the registered agent’s post-dissolution authority should not permit service. | Due process not violated; service on UCS complied with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerth v. Polestar Entm’t, 325 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (de novo review of void-judgment standard; Rule 74.06)
- Maddox v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 231 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (valid service prerequisite for personal jurisdiction)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court 2006) (due process requirements for notice and additional service efforts)
- Wash. ex rel. Bond v. Superior Court of Wash., 289 U.S. 361 (Supreme Court 1933) (post-dissolution notice mechanism is constitutional where reasonable)
- Murphy v. Helena Rubinstein Co., 234 F. Supp. 893 (D.N.J.1964) (actual knowledge of non-service requires more than technical compliance)