Opinion ID: 1537412
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Default Judgment Against Constance

Text: [¶ 11] Constance contends that Peoples failed to serve a summons on her at her Orrington residence, which is her dwelling house and usual place of abode, and that she had no knowledge of the action until December 10, 2001. She also contends that Rodney attended the November 21, 2000, hearing with her power of attorney but that she was unrepresented at the hearing because the court did not permit Rodney to represent her. [¶ 12] Peoples contends that it properly served Constance's summons by handing it to Rodney, a person of appropriate age and discretion, at the Peases' Brewer address. According to Peoples, the power of attorney form Rodney presented to the court listed his and Constance's address in Brewer, and the record suggests Constance knew about the court proceedings and failed to appear personally or through counsel. Finally, Peoples contends that Constance waived this issue by failing to allege a defense of insufficient service of process pursuant to M.R. CIV. P. 12. [¶ 13] The foreclosure statute provides that [s]ervice of process on all parties in interest and all proceedings must be in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6321 (Supp.2001); see also LaFosse v. Champagne, 2000 ME 81, 750 A.2d 1254. The Rules permit service upon a competent adult by leaving a copy of it at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein .... M.R. CIV. P. 4(d)(1). A defense of insufficient service of process must be raised in a responsive pleading or by motion or it is not preserved. M.R. CIV. P. 12(b) & (h). [7] [¶ 14] The court did not err in entering a default judgment against Constance because Constance had actual notice of the foreclosure, [8] service was made in hand to her spouse, and she failed to file a motion to dismiss for insufficient service. See 1 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice, § 4.5 at 69 (2d ed. 1970) (If the defendant has received actual notice by the method of service used, the court should hesitate in finding the service insufficient for some technical noncompliance with Rule 4(d)(1).). We affirm the entry of the default judgment.