Opinion ID: 1860489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: procedure for determining validity of service of process

Text: Under the provisions of La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292, a sheriff's return of service of process shall be considered prima facie correct. The impact of that statement is explained by reference to the provisions of La.Code of Evidence, Chapter 3, Effect in Civil Cases of Presumptions and Prima Facie Evidence. According to that chapter, [l]egislation providing that a document or other evidence is prima facie evidence ... establishes a presumption under this Chapter. [10] Presumption is defined as an inference created by legislation that the trier of fact must draw if it finds the existence of the predicate fact unless the trier of fact is persuaded by evidence of the nonexistence of the fact to be inferred. [11] The only presumptions regulated by Chapter 3 of the La.Code of Evidence are rebuttable presumptions [that] therefore may be controverted or overcome by appropriate evidence. [12] If the trier of fact finds the existence of the predicate fact, and if there is evidence controverting the fact to be inferred, it shall find the existence of the inferred fact unless it is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact. [13] The rule that may be extracted from reference to all of the above provisions is stated in Official Comment (b) to La.Code of Evid. 308, which states that [w]hen the predicate fact is established it shifts the burden of persuasion of the non-existence of the inferred fact to the opponent. The phrase burden of persuasion is defined as the burden of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact. [14] The degree of belief required may be by a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, or as otherwise required by law. [15] According to this court's most recent pronouncement on the subject, the burden of persuasion that applies to a party seeking to overcome the rebuttable presumption afforded a completed sheriff's return of service by La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292 is preponderance of the evidence. Roper v. Dailey, 393 So.2d 85 (La.1981). Accordingly, the party attacking service must prove that, more probably than not, proper service was not made. Id., 393 So.2d at 88. Consideration of all of the above principles reveals the following method for determining a Nullity Action based on insufficient service of process: 1. The trier of fact must determine the existence of the predicate facti.e., whether the record contains a completed sheriff's return of service. [16] 2. If the predicate fact exists, the trier of fact must draw the inference created by the legislaturei.e., that the sheriff's return of service is valid. [17] 3. The party attacking the validity of the sheriff's return of service must be allowed to present appropriate evidence to controvert or overcome the presumption created by the first two steps. [18] 4. The trier of fact must determine whether it is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact. [19] 5. If the trier of fact is not persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact, it must find the existence of the inferred fact. [20] 6. If, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact, it may find that the inferred fact does not exist. [21] The record in the instant case indicates that the district court properly applied the rebuttable presumption of validity afforded the completed sheriff's return. Following a trial on the merits, the district court found that the evidence presented by Folger was sufficient to overcome the presumption. In effect, the district court's judgment is based on her being persuaded by the controverting evidence presented by Folger of the non-existence of the inferred factthe latter being that service had been properly made on CT Corporation. Accordingly, the district court annulled the default judgment against Folger. The court of appeal's reversal is based on its review of the record evidence and its conclusion that the presumption of validity should be the decisive factor since neither the sheriff's office nor CT Corporation had proven a fool-proof record keeping system. The court of appeal found that Folger did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity because it failed to prove that it was impossible for service to have been made. Folger raises three assignments of error on appeal: (1) that the evidence it presented at trial was sufficient to overcome the presumed validity of the sheriff's return by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) that the court of appeal misapplied the burden of proof in direct contravention of law established by this court, and (3) that the court of appeal improperly performed an unwarranted de novo review. Because determination of the appropriate appellate standard of review is critical to our consideration of the other issues raised by Folger, we will address the last of Folger's assignments of error first.