Title: Steele v. City of Wichita
Citation: 250 Kan. 524, 826 P.2d 1380
Docket Number: 67,057
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 1992

250 Kan. 524 (1992)
826 P.2d 1380
ROBERT STEELE, SHELDON WULF, RONALD WAITS, GARY DAVIS, GARETH SMITH, BILL WARFIELD, JAMES WALTERS, and EMERY L. GOAD, Appellants,
v.
CITY OF WICHITA, Appellee.
No. 67,057

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed February 28, 1992.
Joseph H. Cassell, of Cassell and Lower, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Bruce C. Ward, of Wichita, was with him on the brief for appellants.
Thomas R. Powell, of Hinkle, Eberhart &amp; Elkouri, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
*525 SIX, J.:
This is a first-impression statutory interpretation case coming to us as a declaratory judgment action seeking: (1) a determination that persons, duly appointed as general process servers under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3), have the authority and power to serve all process, including writs of execution and orders of attachment; and (2) an injunction enjoining the City of Wichita (City) from interfering with such service of process.
Eight individual plaintiffs, Robert Steele, Sheldon Wulf, Ronald Waits, Gary Davis, Gareth Smith, Bill Warfield, James Walters, and Emery L. Goad, have been appointed process servers by a judge or clerk of the 18th Judicial District under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3). The process server plaintiffs (process servers) brought this action against the City.
The trial court ruled that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) limits the authority of general-appointment process servers to serve summonses, petitions, and those documents that might be attached to a summons.
We granted the process servers' motion to transfer from the Court of Appeals. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3017.
The issue for resolution in the case at bar centers on the breadth of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3). What is the extent of the authority the legislature intended for process servers under a general appointment? What is the relationship of K.S.A. 60-706, K.S.A. 60-2401, and K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) in describing the authority of general-appointment process servers?
We hold that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) authorizes process servers, under a general appointment, to serve all process which is complete upon delivery unless special statutes require service by the sheriff or person authorized to exercise the duty of a sheriff.
We agree with the trial court that K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401 do not authorize court-appointed general process servers to serve writs of execution and orders of attachment.
Facts
The parties stipulated to the following facts and legal issues:
"Issues
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court adopted the stipulation of facts and ruled for the City, finding, as a matter of law, that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) "limits the appointment of individuals as process servers to the issuance of summonses." The trial court stated: "K.S.A. [1991 Supp.] 60-303(c)(3) does not authorize a general appointment that empowers an individual to serve all process." The trial court stated that it was not ruling whether a district court judge may specially appoint individuals to serve writs of execution, attachment, or other court process under K.S.A. 60-706 or K.S.A. 60-2401 et seq. because the issue was not fairly before the court. The trial court did not reach the stipulated issues 2, 3, and 4, stating its ruling made such issues moot.
Scope of Review
This case was decided by the trial court on the basis of stipulated facts; consequently, we exercise de novo review. Kneller v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 247 Kan. 399, 400, 799 P.2d 485 (1990). In addition, the issue is one of statutory construction, which is subject to unlimited appellate review. See Pyeatt v. Roadway Express, Inc., 243 Kan. 200, 204, 756 P.2d 438 (1988).
The trial court's ruling related only to a general appointment; consequently, our opinion also is limited to general appointments.
*528 Argument of the Process Servers
Plaintiffs assert that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) authorizes persons appointed generally as process servers to serve "all process," including writs of execution and orders of attachment. They emphasize that all reference in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303 is to "process" and not solely to "summons." Plaintiffs contend "process" means all legal writs, orders, and summonses, including writs of execution. The limiting language of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3), "under this subsection," makes clear that process servers appointed under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) may not serve process by certified mail. Plaintiffs contend the 1990 legislature amended article 3, chapter 60, by substituting "process" for "summons and petition" (L. 1990, ch. 202, § 5; K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-304) and substituting "summons" for "process" (L. 1990, ch. 202, § 9; K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-308). K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-312(a)(1) provides for proof of service of "summons or other process" made by an officer. If service of "such process" is directed to a nonofficer, K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-312(a)(2) directs the nonofficer to make an affidavit as to time, place, and manner of service. Plaintiffs assert that if a nonofficer may file a return of service, such nonofficer must be able to serve process. Plaintiffs declare that if appointed process servers are limited to service of summonses under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3), then sheriffs are also limited to service of summonses. Therefore, no one is authorized to serve any process other than a summons under K.S.A. 60-301 et seq.
Plaintiffs contend K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(b) excludes service by certified mail for service provided for in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-903 (restraining order without notice), K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-906 (injunction order, restraining order), and K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-3104 (protection from abuse). Service under these statutes must be personal and can only be served under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3). If K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) is limited to summonses, there is no mechanism under article 3 for service of process under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-903, 60-906, and 60-3104. Finally, plaintiffs argue that the legislative history, specifically the testimony by a representative of the Judicial Council, indicates that the 1986 amendments authorizing general appointments *529 would allow service of all process by process servers serving under a general appointment.
The City's Position
The City contends "all process" as used in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) was intended to refer to "original process," which is synonymous with summons. The limiting language "under this subsection" in 60-303(c)(3) refers back to 60-303(c)(1), which involves personal and residence service of "process and petition, or other document to be served," which means summonses and petitions and documents that may be attached to petitions. The amendments to article 3 changing "summons" to "process" did not give plaintiffs the authority to serve writs of execution and orders of attachment. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) is limited to service under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(1), i.e., service of summonses, petitions, and other related attached documents. Addressing plaintiffs' K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(b) argument, the City asserts that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-903, 60-906, and 60-3104 deal with the process of bringing a party into a lawsuit, in other words, original process. Finally, the City contends the legislative history does not indicate the Judicial Council was advocating that process servers were to be appointed to serve process other than summonses, petitions, and attached documents.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3)
A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs when the intent can be ascertained from the statute. In construing statutes, legislative intent is to be determined from a general consideration of the entire act. It is our duty, as far as practicable, to reconcile the different provisions to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible. State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825, 829, 740 P.2d 611 (1987).
We must give effect to the legislature's intent even though words, phrases, or clauses must be omitted or inserted in the statute. In determining legislative intent, we are not limited to consideration of the language used in the statute. We may look to the historical background of the statute, the circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished, and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions suggested. Read v. Miller, 247 Kan. 557, 561-62, 802 P.2d 528 (1990). Ordinarily, courts presume that by changing the language of a *530 statute the legislature intends to change its effect. However, the presumption may be strong, weak, or absent, depending on the circumstances. Board of Education of U.S.D. 512 v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 231 Kan. 731, 736, 648 P.2d 1143 (1982).
Having stated the rubric for statutory construction, we turn to the key statute in issue.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c) states in part:
The City relies on Black's Law Dictionary 1205 (6th ed. 1990), as authority that "process" means summons and petition only.
The legislative history of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3), however, leads to the conclusion that the term "process" as used in the statute is broad enough to include delivery of all process of the court.
*531 The 1990 legislature added subsections (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) to 60-303. The major 1990 change in 60-303 was the addition of subsection (b), which provided for service by certified mail. The only significant difference in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) is the additional language, "under this subsection." "[U]nder this subsection" was not necessary when 60-303 only authorized personal and residence service. Thus, the phrase "under this subsection" limits the provisions in 60-303(c)(3) only authorized personal and residence service. Thus, the phrase "under this subsection" limits the provisions in 60-303(c)(3) to personal and residence service as defined in 60-303(c)(1).
K.S.A. 60-303 (Corrick) was first enacted in 1963 when Kansas revised the Code of Civil Procedure to conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Originally, K.S.A. 60-303 (Corrick) provided:
In 1 Gard's Kansas C. Civ. Proc.2d Annot., Ch. 60, Art. 3 (1979), the Prefatory Note of the Advisory Committee states:
The 1963 version of 60-303 was substantially similar to the original version of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c), which provided:
The 1986 amendment to 60-303 changed the statute to substantially the same language that is now contained in K.S.A. 1991 *532 Supp. 60-303(c)(3). The major change in the 1986 amendment deleted the reference to specially appointed process server and added the language: "Process servers shall be appointed freely and may be authorized either to serve process in a single case or in cases generally during a fixed period of time." L. 1986, ch. 215, § 14. A Judicial Council staff attorney appeared before the Senate Committee on Judiciary in 1986, stating that the bill (Senate Bill 480) contained amendments relating to the rules of civil procedure and service of process recommended by the Civil Code Advisory Committee and approved by the Judicial Council. The staff attorney testified:
When the 1986 amendment to 60-303 was passed, the current version of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c) was in effect and differentiated between service of a summons and complaint and service of other process. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c) now states in part:
"Service.
The Judicial Council and the legislature, contrary to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c), chose not to distinguish between service of a summons and petition and service of other process. K.S.A. 60-303 was originally adapted from the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c) in effect in 1963. Both statutes used the language "all process."
In 1966, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Rule 4(c) governs the service of writs of garnishment issued in federal court. United States v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, 361 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.1966). Thus, "all process" in Rule 4(c) was not limited to service of summonses and complaints.
*533 We conclude that "process" as used in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303 was intended to be broader than summonses, petitions, and documents which may be attached. The broader interpretation is consistent with the interpretation extended to the earlier version of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(c) from which K.S.A. 60-303 was originally adapted. See, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 361 F.2d  at 839.
Our reasoning that "all process" as used in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) refers to process other than summonses, petitions, and attached documents does not, however, lead to the conclusion that the legislature intended to grant authority for process servers under a general appointment to serve writs of execution and orders of attachment. As we discuss later in this opinion, K.S.A. 60-2401 and 60-706 limit the authority for service of such writs to sheriffs or other law enforcement officers. Furthermore, service of process involving obligations of the process server beyond serving notice invokes other duties and responsibilities which may require the enforcement presence of a sheriff. Where enforcement may be required, it would be improper to appoint a person who does not possess the same statutory powers. See 4A Wright &amp; Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1091 (1987).
The policy preventing the service of writs of execution and orders of attachment by generally appointed process servers may be reconciled with the language of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3). K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) authorizes only service of process, i.e., the delivery of process. The statute does not authorize the execution of process. Thus, general process servers appointed under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) are authorized to serve any process which only involves delivery of the process.
The trial court erred in limiting "all process" to summonses, petitions, and attached documents. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) is broad enough to authorize the general appointment of process servers to serve all process which is complete upon the delivery of the process; consequently, we need not address the process servers' 60-303(b) argument.
K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401
Plaintiffs argue that K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401 authorize process servers under a general appointment to serve writs of execution and orders of attachment. K.S.A. 60-2401(a) authorizes *534 "an officer" to seize nonexempt property. A writ of execution is served in the same manner as an order of attachment under K.S.A. 60-706 through 60-710. K.S.A. 60-2401(d). K.S.A. 60-706 authorizes a sheriff or "other officer" authorized by law to serve an order of attachment in the same manner as an ordinary summons under article 3. (K.S.A. 60-301 et seq.) Plaintiffs contend that a court-appointed process server under a general appointment is an "officer" of the court and authorized to serve writs of executions and orders of attachment under K.S.A. 60-706 and 60-2401.
K.S.A. 60-2401 provides in part:
....
K.S.A. 60-706 provides in part:
*535 Both K.S.A. 60-706 and 60-2401 distinguish between service and execution. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) only authorizes service.
K.S.A. 19-812 provides:
K.S.A. 19-812 specifically authorizes the sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy to execute writs. K.S.A. 19-804a authorizes the county clerk to exercise all the powers and duties of the sheriff when there is no sheriff in an organized county. K.S.A. 19-801a requires the sheriff to execute a bond. K.S.A. 19-820 provides for penalties when the sheriff neglects to make return of "any writ or process."
A review of K.S.A. 19-812, 19-804a, 19-801a, and 19-820 leads us to conclude that "officer" as used in K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401 refers to sheriffs, undersheriffs, deputies, county clerks, and others who are authorized by law to exercise the sheriffs duties. In addition, K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-312(a) distinguishes between the manner in which officers and nonofficers return proof of service. If plaintiffs' argument that persons authorized to serve process are officers of the court had merit, there should be no need to distinguish between officers and nonofficers.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303 is a general statute regarding service of process. K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401 are specific statutes dealing with service and execution of writs of execution and orders of attachment. The specific statutes control. See Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 244 Kan. 343, 353, 770 P.2d 423 (1989).
K.S.A. 60-706 and K.S.A. 60-2401 require a sheriff or person authorized to exercise the duty of a sheriff to serve and execute writs of executions and orders of attachment. Such statutes do not authorize process servers under a general appointment to serve and execute such writs.
We reverse the trial court's holding that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) limits process servers operating under a general appointment to serving summonses, petitions, and attached documents. We hold that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-303(c)(3) authorizes *536 general appointment process servers to serve all process which is complete upon delivery unless specific statutes require the sheriff or persons authorized to exercise the duty of a sheriff to serve the same.
We affirm the trial court's ruling that K.S.A. 60-706 and 60-2401 do not authorize process servers under a general appointment to serve writs of execution and orders of attachment.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.