This is a question of fact. A return of service shows that Husband was personally served at his home address by Gary Stubbs, a private process server, on May 28, 1997. This jurisdiction has never addressed whether a presumption of correctness applies to a return of service by a private process server. In Classic Cabinets , we extended the presumption of correctness to a constable's return of service. For the same reasons expressed in Classic Cabinets , we now extend the presumption of correctness to a return of service by a private process server.
All process servers are subject to the same criminal charges for falsifying a return of service.
See Utah Code Ann. Since all process servers are held equally accountable under the law, it follows that their returns of service should be given an equal presumption of correctness. Thus, Stubbs's return of service certifying that Husband was personally served is presumptively correct and can be disproved only by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court determined that, contrary to Wife's argument, the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that Husband was not served with process. Of significant importance in this case is the fact that the return of service was erroneous on its face because it stated that service occurred at Husband's home, which was admittedly incorrect.