Opinion ID: 164774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Service of garnishment

Text: 26 SBTC argues that it was never properly served with the garnishment summons and the garnishment was therefore void and of no effect. SBTC is a Missouri corporation, licensed to conduct business within the state of Oklahoma. As previously noted, the Strongs served SBTC with the March 1988 garnishment by mailing a copy by certified mail to SBTC's agent for service of process in Missouri. 27 The service of process issue here involves a complex matrix of state and federal statutes. Our analysis begins with Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a), which states in pertinent part: 28 The procedure on execution, in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment, and in proceedings on and in aid of execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought, except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable. 29 This rule refers us to state law concerning service of process unless there is an applicable statute of the United States that trumps the state rules. We have held that the phrase statute of the United States as used in this rule includes applicable federal court rules. Okla. Radio Assocs. v. FDIC, 969 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir.1992). The federal rules apply, however, only if there is no state statute specifically applicable to service of garnishments. In other words, a specific state garnishment rule trumps the federal rules. See id. at 942-43; Rumsey v. George E. Failing Co., 333 F.2d 960, 962 (10th Cir.1964). If the specific state garnishment rule merely refers to the state's general rules for service of process, however, federal law governs. Okla. Radio, 969 F.2d at 943. 30 Oklahoma's general garnishment statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1173.3(C), does not contain a specific rule for service of process. Instead, it refers to the general Oklahoma procedural law for rules governing service of process, id. § 2004. Section 2004, however, was amended in 1996 to include a specific provision applicable to garnishments. The amendment provides: Service by mail to a garnishee shall be accomplished by mailing a copy of the summons and notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, and at the election of the judgment creditor by restricted delivery, to the addressee. Id. § 2004(C)(2)(b) (Cum.Supp.2003). 31 We conclude this specific state statute, and not the exception to Rule 69(a), controls. State law therefore governs sufficiency of service of process here. 32 Service here was accomplished by certified mail, as required by Title 12, §§ 1173.4(D) and 2004. The question is whether that mailing was addressed to the proper addressee. 33 Section 2004(C)(2) permits service by mail upon a defendant of any class referred to in division (1), (3) or (5) of subparagraph c of paragraph 1 of this section. The division (3) referred to states that service may be accomplished: 34 Upon a domestic or foreign corporation ... by delivering a copy of the summons and of the petition to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process[.] 35 Id. § 2004(C)(1)(c)(3). See Bank of Okla., N.A. v. Krown Sys., 53 P.3d 924, 927 (Okla.Ct.App.2002) (applying § 2004(C)(1)(c)(3) to service of garnishment summons on corporation). 36 The agent served in this instance, Paul Lane, was authorized by law to receive service of process for SBTC in Missouri. SBTC raises two problems with service on Mr. Lane. First, he was not the registered agent in Oklahoma, where the suit was filed. SBTC had an Oklahoma agent who arguably could have been served. Second, SBTC argues that Missouri law permits corporations to appoint separate agents for service of process generally, and service of garnishments in particular. Mr. Lane, they contend, was not their Missouri agent for garnishment service. 37 We reject SBTC's arguments. Section 2004(C)(1)(c)(3) allows service on  any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. (Emphasis added.) Service of process is permitted outside the state as long as it is consistent with due process principles. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 2004(E)(2)(c), (F). SBTC does not contend that the process here was inconsistent with due process, only that it was technically improper. See Vance v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 988 P.2d 1275, 1279 (Okla.1999) (It is not every variance in the service of process which will invalidate it.). 38 The fact that Mr. Lane was not designated to receive service of garnishments under Missouri law does not invalidate the service of process. The Oklahoma legislature knew how to subject service to the requirements of foreign law when it so chose. 4 There is no reference to foreign law in the requirement that service outside this state ... must be made upon the designated individual or individuals. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004(E)(5). We conclude that the process employed here provided SBTC with actual notice and was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. 2. Disposition of certified question 39 We review de novo the district court's construction of state law concerning garnishment exemptions. See Deretich v. City of St. Francis, 128 F.3d 1209, 1212 (8th Cir.1997). The district court's decision in this case is inconsistent with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's answer to our certified question. Without the benefit of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's answer, the district court concluded that Mr. Laubach was entitled to exempt only $50,000 of workers' compensation proceeds. According to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, workers' compensation proceeds are completely exempt under Okla. Stat. tit. 85, § 48. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 40 REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.