Opinion ID: 1713779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Service of summons

Text: ¶16 The State argues that personal jurisdiction in the juvenile court attached on October 31, 2001, when the Walworth County juvenile court clerk mailed the summons for appearance on the delinquency petition to Aufderhaar's Whitewater, Wisconsin address by regular mail, and it was not returned. This mailing occurred after the court had knowledge that Aufderhaar had moved to Montana. [7] The State also asserts that a notice of hearing and waiver petition mailed to Rollins, Montana on March 14, 2003, was sufficient, as it was not returned. The State contends these mailings, either individually or collectively, satisfy Wis. Stat. § 938.27(3)(a)1 and Wis. Stat. § 938.273(1). [8] We disagree. ¶17 Wisconsin Stat. § 938.27(3)(a)1 plainly requires notice under s. 938.273 be given to the juvenile and any parent. Wisconsin Stat. § 938.273(1) provides three ways in which statutorily sufficient notice may be provided: (1) by mailing a summons or notice for appearance in regard to the delinquency petition and the juvenile and any parent appear; (2) by personal service on the juvenile and any parent; or (3) if the court is satisfied that it is impracticable to serve the summons or notice personally, by certified mail addressed to the last known addresses of the persons to be served. ¶18 If the mailing of the summons that the State sent on October 31, 2001, had resulted in Aufderhaar and a parent's appearance, we would agree that personal jurisdiction attached with that mailing. [9] However, no one appeared in response to the mailings. At that point, the State could have caused personal jurisdiction to attach by personal service or by convincing the court to order service by certified mail and then completing service by that mode. ¶19 The court of appeals was correct in stating, It is undisputed that the juvenile court erred when, following Aufderhaar's nonappearance at his initial hearing to respond to the delinquency petition, it failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 938.273. After Aufderhaar failed to appear at the initial hearing, § 938.273(1) required the juvenile court to grant a continuance and to order personal service or service via certified mail. The juvenile court did none of these things, but rather, it ordered a capias under Wis. Stat. § 938.28. This was insufficient to cause personal jurisdiction to attach. [10] ¶20 The State also argues that proper notice was given to the Aufderhaars even though the juvenile court did not follow Wis. Stat. § 938.273(1). The State argues that the court of appeals erred in characterizing the various mailings as establishing constructive notice. The State contends that when the clerk's office mailed the summons and delinquency petition in October 2001 to the Aufderhaars' former address in Whitewater, an address reasonably calculated to reach [Aufderhaar], actual notice of the delinquency petition was established. Further, the circuit court stated that Aufderhaar clearly receive[d] at least one of those two notices sent in March 2003 regarding the waiver hearing. ¶21 To support this argument, the State points to cases such as State ex rel. Flores v. State, 183 Wis. 2d 587, 612, 516 N.W.2d 362 (1994), for the proposition that the mailing of a letter creates a presumption that the letter was delivered and received. Under this rule, the State argues that because the proper documents had been mailed to various addresses and not returned, Aufderhaar had actual notice and therefore personal jurisdiction was obtained over him. The court of appeals agreed, citing to Flores as part of its rationale that the juvenile court had obtained personal jurisdiction. ¶22 The State's argument fails because whether Aufderhaar had constructive or actual notice is irrelevant. Personal jurisdiction in this case depends on compliance with the procedures set out in Wis. Stat. § 938.273(1). As we have already stated, after Aufderhaar failed to appear at the initial hearing, the statute requires the juvenile court to grant a continuance and order service to be made personally or via certified mail, yet the juvenile court did none of these things. We also note that Flores is not a service of process case, but rather, it concerns an evidentiary rule that the mailing of a letter creates a presumption that the letter was delivered and received. The provisions of § 938.273(1), rather than evidentiary rules, govern service and personal jurisdiction in juvenile cases. ¶23 The State makes an alternative argument that personal jurisdiction in the juvenile court attaches when the State files a delinquency petition. It points to Jermaine T.J., which was cited by the court of appeals in its decision affirming the circuit court's denial of Aufderhaar's motion to dismiss as supportive of this contention. In Jermaine T.J., [11] the juvenile was in custody when the delinquency petition was filed. Jermaine T.J., 181 Wis. 2d at 85. A secure detention hearing was conducted and Jermaine was released to his parents the same day. Id. Delinquency and waiver petitions and a summons were sent by regular mail to Jermaine and his parents. Id. Jermaine failed to appear at the date set for the initial appearance on the delinquency and waiver petitions and the juvenile court issued a capias. Id. When Jermaine was taken into custody on an unrelated charge, he then made an initial appearance on the waiver and delinquency petitions on which he previously had failed to appear. Id. He did not contest the court's jurisdiction over him at that hearing. [12] The court orally informed Jermaine of the date of the waiver hearing, but he failed to appear again and a second capias was issued. Id. at 86. After Jermaine was arrested again, the waiver hearing was held and Jermaine was waived into adult court. Id. ¶24 As in the present case, Jermaine moved to dismiss the case because the service statute was not followed, but the circuit court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals stated the juvenile court did not order that Jermaine be personally served; nor did it find that personal service would be ineffectual and order service by certified mail. Under the unambiguous terms of the statute, we conclude that this was error. Id. at 87. However, the court of appeals ultimately ruled that [w]e do not agree that the error of the juvenile court mandates that this case be dismissed. Id. at 88. The court likened Jermaine's situation of being arrested pursuant to an improperly issued capias to that of an illegal arrest, and [i]n Wisconsin, an illegal arrest is not a jurisdictional defect. Id. at 90 (citing State v. Smith, 131 Wis. 2d 220, 240, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986)). ¶25 To support its argument that the provisions in Wis. Stat. § 938.273 need not be followed in order for the juvenile court to obtain personal jurisdiction, the State cites to the statement in Jermaine T.J. that we conclude that it is the delinquency petition that is the critical procedure for acquiring personal jurisdiction over the juvenile. Id. at 91 (citing Smith, 131 Wis. 2d at 238-240). The State misconstrues the analyses in Jermaine T.J. and Smith. ¶26 First, Jermaine appeared in regard to the delinquency and waiver petitions without contesting jurisdiction. Aufderhaar did not. This is an important difference because it provided an alternative route for personal jurisdiction to attach. As the court of appeals explained, '[The] physical presence gives the juvenile court jurisdiction over the custody of the child.' Jermaine T.J., 181 Wis. 2d at 89 (quoting State ex rel. La Follette v. Circuit Court, 37 Wis. 2d 329, 343, 155 N.W.2d 141 (1967)). We find no fault with this reasoning, as it supports our conclusion that while a delinquency petition is critical for acquiring personal jurisdiction, it is not, in itself, sufficient. Second, Jermaine T.J. did not address the question presented here because, as the court noted, personal jurisdiction was obtained by an alternate means, appearance. ¶27 Accordingly, we agree with Aufderhaar that unless the defect is waived by appearance, compliance with statutory provisions regarding service of process is required before a juvenile court has personal jurisdiction. [13] Additionally, a juvenile's actual knowledge of the pendency of the action is not equivalent to service. See Hagen v. City of Milwaukee Employee's Ret. Sys. Annuity & Pension Bd., 2003 WI 56, ¶13, 262 Wis. 2d 113, 663 N.W.2d 268 (citing Heaston v. Austin, 47 Wis. 2d 67, 71, 176 N.W.2d 309 (1970)). Allowing the juvenile court to waive Aufderhaar into adult court, where the criminal penalties are more substantial, without its following the proper statutory procedure fails to provide due process through which each juvenile offender and all other interested parties are assured fair hearings, during which constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced, one of the stated purposes of the Juvenile Justice Code. Wis. Stat. § 938.01(2)(d).