Linda J. Earls and Tony L. Earls, Appellants v. Harvest Credit Management Vi-B, LLC, Appellee — Baker, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Baker’s dissent argues that the summons complied with the applicable service rule because it correctly stated the response period for the defendants actually served, even though it misstated the period applicable to incarcerated defendants. She reasons that the rule’s use of the definite article “the” requires accuracy as to the specific defendant served and that prior decisions are consistent with that interpretation. Justice Hart, concurring, would prefer substantial compliance but agrees that the court should not create another exception within its strict-compliance jurisprudence and concludes that the summons was not in strict compliance.