Opinion ID: 1829908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: M.R.C.P. 4(c) and Minimal Contacts.

Text: Finally, Chandler contends that the chancery court was authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Jones because Jones was served personal process as provided by Rule 4(c)(1) and/or 4(c)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and there were sufficient minimum contacts between Jones and the State of Mississippi. The lower court apparently agreed with Chandler. In denying Jones' motion to dismiss, the Chancellor held: The matter before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of this Court. The Court believes that Rule 4(c)(1) and (2) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide personal service of process, say in this case that the Defendant was personally served. Mr. Edwards has certainly presented a well-reasoned argument, and the Court is inclined to agree with him that the issue is sufficiently raised in his pleadings. However, the Court does not believe that particular aspect to be controlling. It would appear to the Court that the Defendant has been personally served pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1) and/or (2), and for that reason the Motion to Dismiss is overruled and denied. (emphasis added) Compliance with Rule 4, however, does not in and of itself confer personal jurisdiction upon the chancery court. There must be a statute conferring such jurisdiction. This is supported by the Comment to Rule 4: Rule 4(c)(1) provides for service by a process server and Rule 4(c)(2) provides for service by a sheriff. There is no limit to the territorial jurisdiction of a process server who may serve the summons anywhere in the world. A sheriff, however, may serve the summons only within his county. However, the mere service of the summons and complaint does not, of itself, resolve all questions as to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and any such questions may be raised at appropriate times. (emphasis added) Although minimum contacts did exist between Mississippi and Jones, the lower court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over Jones through Rule 4.