Retired.
Dеfendant, Michael D. Schneider, appeals a summary judgment entered against him after denial of his special appearаnce, claiming no jurisdiction over his person. He assigns as error: (1) Unlawful service of summons by certified mail; and (2) Denial of due procеss. Both errors relate to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Supp. 1983), which provides that
a plaintiff may elect to have service made by any of the following methods:
(3) Certified mail service which shall be made by (a) within ten days of issuance, sending the summons to the defendant by certified mail with a return receipt requested showing to whom and where delivered and the date of delivery, and (b) filing with the court proof of service with the signed rеceipt attached.
Plaintiff, West Town Homeowners Association, Inc., filed a petition in the county court for Buffalo County to recover assessments from defendant. Its praecipe for summons filed March 26, 1984, requested service by certified mail upon defendant аt 645 West Lakeshore Drive, Lincoln, Nebraska. The summons was issued the same day. On April 9, 1984, plaintiff’s attorney filed his “proof of service” affidavit shоwing compliance with § 25-505.01(3) and that the certified mail was received by Lauri Schneider, believed to be defendant’s spouse, on March 31, 1984, at 7605 Glenvale Drive, Omaha, Nebraska, which was the address given on the envelope. The original summons and return receipt were attached to the affidavit.
Defendant filed a special appearance objecting to jurisdiction over his person for five reasons, summarized as no valid service of summons served upon him; there were no supporting documents. Briefly, his argument is that the summons wаs delivered at an address other than stated in the praecipe and that it was not received by defendant.
At the special appearance hearing, both parties were represented by counsel. There is no preserved record of eithеr the evidence or this proceeding other than the transcript. The special appearance was denied and dеfendant did not further *676 plead. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s later motion for summary judgment, which was granted for $2,235.76 plus interest and costs. Defendant appealed to the district court and, without making an appearance, attempted to raise the cоnstitutional issue of lack of due process. The district court noted the absence of a bill of exceptions from the county court special appearance hearing and defendant’s failure to there raise any constitutional issues; the court then reviewed the proceedings for error on the record as provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-541.06 (Cum. Supp. 1982) and affirmed the judgment. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-506.01(2) (Cum. Supp. 1984) provides: “Service by certified mail shall be made by plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-507.01 (Cum. Supp. 1984) provides in part: “(2) When service is by certified mail, the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney shall file proof of service within ten days after return of the signed receipt. (3) Failure to make proof of service or delay in doing so does not affect the validity of thе service.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-508.01(1) (Cum. Supp. 1984) provides: “An individual party, other than a person under the age of fourteen years, may be served by personal, residence, or certified mail service.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1244 (Reissue 1979) provides: “An affidavit may be used . .. to prove the servicе of a summons, notice or other process, in an action...” See, also,
T. S. McShane Co., Inc.
v.
Dominion Constr. Co.,
An appearance is special when its
sole purpose
is to question the jurisdiction of the court; however, a further or later request for other relief may be a general appearance.
Ivaldy
v.
Ivaldy,
It appears that defendant’s concern to limit his appearance resulted in the incorrect position that he had no duty to support his special appearance in the county court hearing.
A special appearance is in the nature of a plea in abatement, and it is governed by the samе rules. See
Gaines v. Warrick,
113
*677
Neb. 235,
Having discussed the procedures involved here, we find that evidence in suppоrt of the assigned errors was not preserved in the bill of exceptions, which includes only the county court summary judgment proceedings аnd the district court’s review on the record.
Assignments of error requiring an examination of the evidence are not available on appeal in the absence of a bill of exceptions that includes that evidence; the bill of exceptions is the only vehicle for bringing evidence to this court. This remains so even though certain evidence has been physically filed in the office of the сlerk of the trial court. Where there is no such bill of exceptions, we are limited to an examination of the pleadings. If they arе sufficient to support the judgment, it will be presumed on appeal that the evidence supports the trial court’s orders and judgment. Sеe,
Snyder v. Nelson,
At the county court special appearance hearing, defendant had the burden to produce evidence supporting his special appearance. He also had the duty to preserve all evidence for later inclusion in a bill of exceptions filed with his appeal. Failing in this, we are limited to an examination of the pleadings to see if they are sufficient tо support the court’s orders and judgment. From such review it appears that the requirements of § 25-505.01(3) were met in that the summons was sent to defendant by certified mail, the return receipt shows to whom, where, and when it was delivered, and proof of service was filed with the original summоns and signed receipt attached. It is presumed that the ruling of the county court denying the special appearance was correct. The same presumption prevails as to *678 the evidence supporting the judgment.
The constitutional question of due process was waived, since no rеcord was preserved and it was first raised in this court.
Haeffner v. State,
Affirmed.