Summary
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed an order quashing service and setting aside a default judgment against Pacific Aggregates, Inc. and its liquidating trustee. The court held that the failure of a court-appointed special process server to file the affidavit required by Missouri Rule 54.20(a)(2) was a patent procedural irregularity under Rule 74.32, depriving the trial court of personal jurisdiction and requiring the default judgment to be set aside.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the absence of the affidavit required by Rule 54.20(a)(2) for service by a court-appointed special process server was a patent procedural irregularity permitting the default judgment to be set aside under Rule 74.32.
- Whether Rule 74.30 barred the trial court from setting aside the default judgment based on the special process server's failure to file the required affidavit.
- Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendants' motion to quash service and set aside the default judgment.
Holdings
- The failure of a court-appointed special process server to file the affidavit required by Rule 54.20(a)(2) was a patent procedural irregularity under Rule 74.32 because, if known, it would have prevented entry of the default judgment.
- Rule 74.30 did not bar setting aside the default judgment because a special process server is not an officer for purposes of that rule, and the failure to file the affidavit was a defect in the return rather than an imperfection in the process itself.
- The trial court had jurisdiction to entertain defendants' motion to quash service and set aside the default judgment.
Key quotations
“Rule 74.32 only reaches procedural errors that if known would have prevented the entry of the judgment; irregularities are not ordinary judicial errors in a judgment that are reached through proper procedures and the motion does not allow review of judicial judgment.” (at 809)
“Rule 54.20(a)(2) requires that if service of process is made by a person other than an officer, such person shall make an affidavit as to the time, place and manner of the service.” (at 809)
“Absent such proof in accordance with the rule, the trial court acquired no personal jurisdiction and was without power to determine the rights and liabilities of the defendant.” (at 809)
“Furthermore, “a return must show on its face that every requisite of [Rule 54.-20(a)(2) ] has been complied with and may not be aided by intendments or presumptions.”” (at 809)
Factual background
T.W.I. Investments and Pacific Aggregates owned adjoining parcels of land in St. Louis County, where Pacific conducted surface gravel mining. T.W.I. alleged that Pacific's excavation deprived its land of lateral support and asserted claims for damages based on lateral-support violations, trespass, and interference with an easement. Service was attempted through James P. Blind, Pacific's registered agent and liquidating trustee, but the court-appointed special process server left the summons and petition with Blind's eighteen-year-old son at Blind's residence and filed no affidavit concerning the time, place, and manner of service. T.W.I. later obtained a $1.5 million default judgment on Count I, after which defendants successfully moved to quash service and set aside the judgment.
Procedural history
T.W.I. Investments filed a three-count petition against Pacific Aggregates and James Blind, served process through a court-appointed special process server, and obtained a default judgment on Count I for $1.5 million. After execution proceedings and a sheriff's sale, defendants moved to quash service and set aside the judgment, arguing, among other things, that the special process server had not filed the affidavit required by Rule 54.20(a)(2). The trial court granted defendants' motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.