ILNews

COA: Serving notice on an adult's parents isn't adequate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a trial court can’t serve notice on the home of someone’s parents if that adult doesn’t live there and expect that to serve as adequate notice for the party to appear in court.

A 12-page ruling came from the appellate court today in Jim Norris v. Personal Finance, No. 27A04-1104-SC-183 reversing a decision by Grant Superior Judge Warren Haas.

The case involves a personal loan that Personal Finance granted to Jim Norris in 2008 but that he failed to pay back. In the loan documents, Norris listed his home in Swayzee, Ind., and listed his parents in Middleton, Ind., as references. The promissory note Norris signed didn’t require him to notify Personal Finance of any change in address, and he didn’t. After Norris stopped paying on the loan, Personal Finance filed a claim in small claims court in March 2010 and the sheriff’s office served a copy of the notice to his parents address by personal service and first-class mail.

Norris didn’t appear at the April 2010 hearing and a default judgment was entered against him. In February 2011, an attorney for Norris filed a motion for relief from judgment on grounds that the service of process at the parents’ Middleton address was inadequate because Norris didn’t live there. Norris’ attorney argued that the default judgment was void, but after a hearing the trial judge determined the parents had a duty to either inform Norris of the notice or make sure the trial court knew of address error.

On appeal, the three-judge appellate panel disagreed and found Indiana Trial Rule 4.16 doesn’t impose a duty on the parents and that the notice was insufficient. Specifically, the court looked at the trial rule that says, “Anyone accepting service for another person is under a duty to: 1) promptly deliver the papers to that person; 2) promptly notify that person that he holds the papers for him; or 3) within a reasonable time, notify the clerk or person making the service that he has been unable to make such delivery of notice when such is the case.”

Norris argued that Rule 4.16 applies only to those with authority to accept service for another person and that his parents didn’t have that authority. The appellate judges agreed, basing their decision on LaPalme v. Romero, 621 N.E. 2d 1102 (Ind. 1993) that held parents of a competent adult aren’t included on the list of those with automatic authority to accept service.

The court also found that just because Norris had knowledge of the action and hearing doesn’t grant the court personal jurisdiction, relying on a state Court of Appeals decision from 2001 that found a man hadn’t been adequately served notice even though he eventually received the summons from his parents.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT