Viet Tuan Nguyen v. Asset Acceptance, Llc.
75107-7
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 27, 2017Background
- Asset Acceptance obtained a default judgment in April 2009 against defendant named Viet Tuan Nguyen (who had legally changed his name to Kevin Nguyen in 2000) for an alleged Citibank credit-card debt and later garnished his wages and bank account.
- Asset Acceptance hired ABC Legal Services; on March 12, 2009, ABC's process server left the summons and complaint with Bach Yen Thi Huynh at 3802 S. Benefit St., Seattle, claiming substitute service.
- Nguyen asserts he did not live at the Benefit Street address in March 2009, instead living at 255 Powell Ave SW, Renton; he submitted a declaration, his 2008 tax return (filed March 8, 2009) listing the Renton address, and a declaration from Yen (his former landlord) corroborating the timeline.
- Nguyen filed two pro se motions to vacate the default judgment in 2012 and 2013 (both unsuccessful or procedurally dismissed); he filed a third motion in 2016 with counsel raising lack of service and jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the 2016 motion, finding Nguyen failed to present clear and convincing evidence he was not served and referencing his prior motions; Nguyen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Asset Acceptance's Argument | Nguyen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Nguyen from relitigating service-of-process | Prior motions to vacate raised same issue so estoppel precludes relitigation | Prior motions were not decided on the merits; no full and fair opportunity to litigate | Collateral estoppel does not apply — Asset Acceptance failed to show earlier merits rulings |
| Whether substitute service at Benefit St. satisfied former RCW 4.28.080(15) | Process server's affidavit establishes prima facie proper substitute service | Nguyen produced clear and convincing evidence he did not live at Benefit St. on date of service | Nguyen met burden; service was improper because Benefit St. was not his usual abode |
| Whether a default judgment entered after improper service is void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Judgment should stand because Nguyen delayed and had prior opportunities to act | A judgment rendered without valid personal service is void regardless of delay | Judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction and must be vacated |
| Whether court should consider discretionary vacation factors (White v. Holm) | Nguyen's delay and conduct weigh against vacating judgment | Void judgments must be vacated regardless of equitable/discretionary factors | Court need not apply White factors; nondiscretionary duty to vacate a void judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Leen v. Demopolis, 62 Wn. App. 473 (establishes trial court duty to vacate void judgments)
- Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 (collateral estoppel requires identity of issues and a prior merits judgment)
- Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838 (standards for reviewing service and related jurisdictional issues)
- Northwick v. Long, 192 Wn. App. 256 (contrast case about insufficient evidence to show improper substitute service)
- Salts v. Estes, 133 Wn.2d 160 (defining "house of usual abode" for substitute service)
- White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348 (discretionary factors for setting aside default judgments)