Opinion ID: 1320396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Appointment Issue

Text: The district court found: 10. Plaintiff did not secure the appointment of the Sheriff of Boulder County, Colorado, or his undersheriff or deputy, under Rule 4(c)(2), W.R.C.P., prior to personal service of process by said Sheriff or his undersheriff or deputy on the Defendants in Boulder County, Colorado. The court concluded: The failure to first secure the appointment of the Sheriff of Boulder County, Colorado, in and of itself, is a requirement, if technically applied, which is unreasonably harsh and should not intervene to defeat otherwise perfected service through which rights have vested by judgment. However, the Court does not find it necessary to make a determination of this issue for disposition of the motion. Rule 4(c)(1) and 4(c)(2), W.R.C.P., provides: (c) By whom served.  Process may be served: (1) Within the state, by the sheriff of the county where the service is made, or by his undersheriff or deputy, or, at the request of the party causing same to be issued, by any other person over the age of 21 years, not a party to the action, appointed for such purpose by the clerk; (2) In another state or United States territory, by the sheriff of the county where the service is made, or by his undersheriff or deputy, or by a United States marshal, or his deputy, or any other person over the age of 21 years, not a party to the action, appointed for such purpose by the clerk; We are immediately confronted with a semantic quarrel over whether the phrase appointed for such purpose by the clerk in subsection (2) modifies only any other person ... or whether it modifies sheriff of the county where the service is made as well. Appellant points to subsection (1) and argues that the parallel language must be interpreted so that appointed for such purpose... only modifies any other person. This is necessary, appellant argues, since the in-state sheriff of subsection (1) is already appointed by Wyoming law. § 18-3-604, W.S. 1977. Appellant argues that a similar intent can be inferred when reading the parallel subsection (2). Appellees cite Simonson v. Typer, supra, 285 F.2d at 245, for the proposition that Wyoming law requires that an out-of-state server be appointed by the forum court clerk. However, the holding in that 1922 Eighth Circuit case was specifically based on § 5627, W.C.S. 1920. That section has now been replaced by the above ambiguous rule and Simonson is no authority in the present dispute. We decline the invitation of both sides to examine a summons form prepared by the Mills Company of Sheridan in the hopes of resolving this ambiguity. Faced with what we perceive as a genuine ambiguity in the rule and a lack of controlling authority, we will resolve the ambiguity by resorting to public policy considerations. Sheriffs and their deputies customarily serve process; we see no due process or other need to appoint an out-of-state sheriff to have him serve. However, the legal profession has a duty to serve the public as efficiently as possible and this creates a need to streamline legal procedures whenever it is possible to do so without undesirable consequences. We hold that Rule 4(c)(2), supra, does not require the appointment by the clerk of a sheriff of the county where service is made, or ... his undersheriff or deputy, or ... a United States marshal, or his deputy.