Andre Lapalme and Danaca Transport Ltee, Appellants v. Juan Romero and Dolores Romero, Appellees (Indiana 1993)

Summary

The court held that delivering a summons and complaint for a nonresident defendant to the legal manager of the defendant's employer did not constitute valid service under Indiana's specified service rules. Because the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over LaPalme, the default judgment against him was void and had to be set aside, while the judgment against Danaca was affirmed. Justice Givan, dissenting, would have treated the delivery as substantial compliance with the service rule and denied transfer.

Holding

Whether service on LaPalme through delivery of his summons and complaint to Danaca's legal manager at Danaca's workplace was valid.. The service was insufficient because the process server did not deliver the summons and complaint to LaPalme, leave them at his dwelling or usual place of abode, send them by an authorized mailing method, or use another authorized method of service. The employer's legal manager lacked authority to accept service for LaPalme, so the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him and the default judgment was void.