Opinion ID: 2973187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Compel Service of Process

Text: Appellant is not entitled to the relief requested in his motion to compel service of process, and the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion is proper. Timmons Estate and Timmons Heirs, owners of Timmons Farm, were named as defendants in the Deere Credit adversary proceeding. They appeared in the adversary proceeding, were represented by counsel, and could have filed the counterclaim to which Appellant repeatedly refers, if such action had been deemed necessary or appropriate. Thus, since Appellant and his two siblings are Timmons Estate and Timmons Heirs, Appellant as part owner of Timmons Farm was represented by counsel. Appellant as a frequent operator of Timmons Farm was named as a “party in interest” and was given great latitude to participate in the adversary proceeding. Nothing in the record suggests that Appellant was a necessary party or that he was entitled to be named as a defendant. Nothing in the record suggests that Appellant was prejudiced by Deere Credit’s failure to serve him with a summons and complaint. The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to compel service of process.