Opinion ID: 1210800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Service Effected On A Member Of One's Household Is Recognized As Valid

Text: ¶ 14 Legislation in force since statehood recognizes as effective that service which was made on a member of one's household by leaving a copy of the process with any person (15 years or older) who is then residing at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the person to whom process is directed. See the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp.1996 § 2004(C)(1)(c)(1) [38] The statute also provides that an appointment may be made by the addressee or by law for acceptance of service for another. This provision represents our legal system's long-standing confirmation that effective service need not be made exclusively on one to whom process is addressed. [39] The conceptual underpinning for the provisions of § 2004(C)(1)(c)(1) is not in a notion of agency or of kinship (by consanguinity or affinity), but rather in the law's perceived bond by cohabitation in a common dwelling. [40] The test we apply today has the very same underpinning. The constitutional norms of quality are not dependent on where service was effected on another. The fundamental-law test is based on the reasonable probability [41] that the person to whom service is directed will receive actual notice from one who accepted service for another as the latter's lawful designee. The service in this case is to be treated as within the guidelines prescribed by § 2004(C)(1)(c)(1) and of the general policy expressed in it.