March Vol. 5, No. 2

Casenotes

Indiana

Civil Procedure

Norris v Personal Finance, 957 NE2d 1002 (Ind Ct App, 2011).

Facts: On April 15, 2008, Jim Norris received a loan from and signed a promissory note payable to Personal Finance. In the loan documents, Norris stated that his home address was located in Swayzee, Indiana. He listed his parents as references and gave his parents' home address, which was located in Middleton, Indiana. The promissory note did not require Norris to notify Personal Finance of a change of address, and he did not do so.

Norris failed to make payments on the loan. On March 17, 2010, Personal Finance filed a notice of claim against Norris in small claims court. The sheriff delivered a copy of the notice of claim to Norris' parents' address and also sent a copy there by first-class mail. On April 22, 2010, Norris failed to appear at the hearing on the claim and the trial court entered default judgment against him.

On February 4, 2011, Norris filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging that service of process at his parents' address was inadequate because he did not reside there when the notice of claim was serviced. Therefore, the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and the default judgment was void.

In the hearing on Norris' motion, the trial court found that service to the parents' address was adequate because the parents had a duty under Indiana Trial Rule 4.16 to inform the court that Norris did not live with them. The trial court denied Norris' motion for relief from judgment. On appeal, Norris argued that the trial court erred in applying Trial Rule 4.16. Personal Finance did not file an appellee's brief.

Holding: Reversed. The court of appeals found that Trial Rule 4.16 applies only to those with authority to accept service for another person. In this case, Norris' parents did not have the authority to accept service for him because they were not included in the list of persons having authority under the trial rules. Moreover, Personal Finance did not present evidence showing that Norris' parents were acting as his agents. The court quoted LaPalme v Romero, 621 NE2d 1102 (Ind. 1993), which stated, "[w]e construe the clause in T.R. 4.16(b) that ‘Anyone accepting service for another person…' to mean anyone with authority to accept service for another person." Therefore, the court held that service by delivery to Norris' parents' address did not comply with Trial Rule 4.16 and thus was ineffective.

The court also addressed the trial court's finding that Norris had actual notice of the hearing based on emails showing that Norris called Personal Finance's attorney the day before the hearing. The court quoted Hill v Ramey, 744 NE2d 509 (Ind Ct App, 2001), which stated that "the mere fact that the defendant has knowledge of the action will not grant the court personal jurisdiction."

Issue Home

 

Print this page