Opinion ID: 1155797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Service on the Secretary of State

Text: Plaintiffs received notice from the Secretary of State that the attempted mailing to the Casper box number had been unsuccessful and the notice consequently returned. Counsel did not request a further mailing or advise the Secretary of State of the more current address of Thayne, Wyoming, by requesting re-mailing either to the street address in Casper as the address of the agent for service, or to the most current address known in Thayne. Although we are reluctant in this case to postulate a rule in regard to the notice mailing from the Secretary of State to the most current known address, which is not specifically required by statute (which might be both wiser and safer), as otherwise required of counsel in certain substitute-service processes under Rule 4, W.R.C.P., we do find in this case that the mailing to an address not listed for the agent for service and which also is not the last known address for the corporation is not adequate, Bryant v. Wybro Federal Credit Union, supra, and that the duty to show compliance rests with litigants. Crotteau v. Irvine, Wyo., 656 P.2d 1166 (1983); Southwestern Remodelers of Houston, Inc. v. Lumaside, Inc., Tex.Civ. App., 501 S.W.2d 759 (1973). Obviously, the notice document of a copy of the summons and complaint as required to be mailed by the Secretary of State was sent neither to the listed street address for the agent for service (registered office) nor to the last known address for the corporation known to counsel for plaintiffs. [5] Nondelivery notice was promptly furnished by the Secretary of State to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the attempted substitute service by service on the Secretary of State was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The matter of proper mailing of the suit documents by the Secretary of State is an indispensable adjunct of constitutional and statutory compliance to effectuate executed service of process if a default judgment consequently results. Pease Brothers v. American Pipe & Supply Co., supra; Piggly-Wiggly Georgia Co. v. May Investing Corp., 189 Ga. 477, 6 S.E.2d 579, 126 A.L.R. 1465 (1939); Southwestern Remodelers of Houston, Inc. v. Lumaside, Inc., supra; Whitney v. L & L Realty Corporation, Tex., 500 S.W.2d 94 (1973).