|
An interesting case dealing with a civil procedure
situation was recently decided by Tennessee Court of Appeals. This case is Ace
Design Group Inc. v. Greater Christ Temple Church Inc., No.
M2016-00089-COA-R3-CV 2016 WL 7166408, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). In this case, the Defendant had a Registered
Agent listed with the Tennessee Secretary of State with a specific
address. Initially the Plaintiff
attempted to serve the Defendant’s Registered Agent at the address listed with
the Secretary of State, however, it was an incorrect address for the Registered
Agent, therefore, the service of process was returned “unserved”. However, subsequent to that, the Registered
Agent was served at his business address after the attorney for the Plaintiff
did some research to determine where the Registered Agent was actually located. As a result, the Registered Agent actually
received service of process of the lawsuit.
Despite this fact, the Defendant Church, did not respond to the
Complaint or the Motion for Default Judgment.
As a result, Default Judgment was entered against the church with
damages totaling approximately $132,000.00.
This case was appealed to the Tennessee
Court of Appeals and the Defendant argued that actual service on the Registered
Agent was not effective because it was not served on the Registered Agent at
the address listed with the Secretary of State.
However, it was undisputed that the Registered Agent was actually served
personally. This argument was quite
confusing because it makes no sense. The
Tennessee Court of Appeals found this argument had no merit. Specifically, the Court found that “in
serving process, it is not the address or location where service is achieved
that is paramount; rather, it is whether the proper party is served that
establishes compliance with the process requirements.” Ace
Design at p. 5. The Court further
stated that “personal service of written notice within the jurisdiction is the
classic form of notice always adequate in any type of proceeding.” citing Mullane v.
Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).
The Defendant also argued that once the
service was returned “unserved” at the address listed with the Secretary of
State, then service needed to be completed at the church’s physical address. The Tennessee Court of Appeals also rejected this
argument. Specifically, it found the
church’s status as a Tennessee corporation required it to have a Registered
Agent in the state pursuant T.C.A. 48-15-101.
This statute provides as follows:
|