Opinion ID: 1286138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Defense of Insufficiency of Service of Process Was Waived by at Least One of the Appellants

Text: As a preliminary matter, I need to point out that the majority opinion's fixation with the phrase personal jurisdiction resulted in a flawed analysis of the dispositive issue confronting the Court. The opinion in Roque v. United States, 857 F.2d 20, 21-22 (1st Cir. 1988), addressed the concern I have as follows: Rule 12(b) distinguishes between the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction[] and insufficient service of process. ... If the true objection is insufficient service of process, we do not think it is too much to require a litigant to plainly say so. [A party] should not couch its true objection to the sufficiency of service in the garb of formalistic incantations of lack of personal jurisdiction[.] Roque, 857 F.2d at 21-22. In the instant case, the majority opinion has clothed the Rule 12(b)(5) issue of insufficiency of service of process with the garb of formalistic incantations of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). [8] In other words, the true issue in this case was the appellants' contention that process was not properly served on them. [9] In fact, the majority opinion clearly stated that the Appellants contend that the manner in which Leslie Equipment sought to effect service of process on them deprived the trial court of the necessary personal jurisdiction to enter an enforceable default judgment. Maj. op. at 112. Inasmuch as the majority opinion concluded, and I concur, that Rule 4(e)(2) was not the proper vehicle for service of process on the appellants, the next step in the analysis should have been a determination of whether the appellants waived the defense of insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). [10] The majority opinion indicates in footnote 5 that Appellant Zach received and accepted process by mail at his residence in New Mexico. Appellant Goeke did not actually receive process at her home in Iowa. It appears that process for Appellant Goeke was sent to Appellant Zach's residence. [11] Under these facts, an analysis is required to determine whether Appellant Zach waived the defense of insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). To begin, Rule 12(a)(1) provides that when service of process is made upon a defendant in the manner provided in Rule 4(e) ..., the answer shall be served within 30 days after service of the summons[.] Under Rule 12(b), [e]very defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief ... shall be asserted in the responsive pleading ..., except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: ... (5) insufficiency of service of process.... A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading[.] Rule 12(b) has been explained as follows: Rule 12(b) permits a defendant to raise certain defenses and objections by motion filed before serving an answer. A defendant may forego a pre-answer motion and assert in an answer to a complaint every defense, objection or response the defendant has to the plaintiff's complaint, including jurisdictional challenges, denials, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Franklin D. Cleckley, Robin J. Davis & Louis J. Palmer, Jr., Litigation Handbook on West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, § 12(b) (3d ed. 2008) (hereinafter referred to as Litigation Handbook). Under Rule 12(h)(1), [a] defense of ... insufficiency of service of process is waived... if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading[.] The issue of insufficiency of service of process has been explained as follows: An objection [to sufficiency of service of process] challenges the mode of delivery or lack of delivery of the summons and complaint.... A Rule 12(b)(5) [insufficiency of service of process] motion is proper only to challenge noncompliance with a provision of Rule 4 that deals specifically with service of process. A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant if there is insufficient service of process. Litigation Handbook, at § 12(b)(5). It is clear from the majority opinion that Appellant Zach did not file an answer or pre-answer motion to the complaint. Consequently, a default judgment was eventually entered. Under our law, the failure of a defendant to file an answer or pre-answer motion asserting the defense of insufficiency of service of process constitutes a waiver of that issue. Moreover, I have been unable to find any case by this Court or from other jurisdictions that permits a defendant to belatedly raise the issue of insufficiency of service of process when the defendant received process, but permitted a default judgment to be entered. See In re Appointment of Trs. for Woodlawn Cemetery, 222 W.Va. 351, 354, 664 S.E.2d 692, 695 (2008) ([B]ecause the appellants failed to make a motion or file any pleading challenging the sufficiency of the appellees' service of process by publication... the appellants waived their objections.); Syl. pt. 1, in part, Vanover v. Stonewall Cas. Co., 169 W.Va. 759, 289 S.E.2d 505 (1982) (Where a defendant ... fails to appear and allows a default judgment to be taken, the default judgment cannot be set aside on a claim of lack of venue, since the venue issue has been waived by the failure to assert it.). [12] Based upon the foregoing, I believe that Appellant Zach waived the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction based upon insufficiency of service of process. Further, insofar as it appears that Appellant Goeke's objection to personal jurisdiction was based upon insufficiency of service of process, I would have remanded this issue for a determination of (1) exactly when and how she received notice of the action and (2) whether she had sufficient time to file a motion or answer objecting on insufficiency of service of process grounds prior to a default (not the default judgment) being entered against her.