Opinion ID: 1155797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Answer Date

Text: Excluding due process and constitutional requirements, the applicable law for substituted service on a corporation is § 17-1-111(b), W.S. 1977:    In the event any such process, notice or demand is served on the secretary of state, he shall immediately cause one (1) of the copies thereof to be forwarded by registered mail addressed to the corporation at its registered office. Any service so had on the secretary of state shall be returnable in not less than thirty (30) days.  (Emphasis added.) The relevant question under this section as substitute service is, what is the answer date? The derivation of the section is Ch. 85, § 11, S.L. of Wyoming 1961. The provision was taken verbatim from the Model Business Corporation Act, § 14. See Model Bus.Corp.Act Ann.2d § 14 (American Bar Foundation). Wyoming's Rule 4(d)(6), W.R.C.P., provides: Upon the secretary of state, as agent for a party, when and in the manner authorized by statute. Consequently, § 17-1-111(b) is the applicable statute by rule reference. Wyoming law includes the identical terminology in the limited liability company statutes, § 17-15-114, W.S. 1977, as apparently copied from the Wyoming Business Corporation Act, with two comparable statutes providing for agency service on nonresident motorists, § 1-6-301, W.S. 1977, 1985 Cum.Supp., and insurance companies, § 26-3-122, W.S. 1977. No specific dating is provided, but the statute for service on a nonresident motorist in order to provide the required due process provides in subsection (b): The court in which the action is pending shall order such continuance as necessary to afford the defendant or his personal representative reasonable opportunity to defend the action.  (Emphasis added.) § 1-6-301, W.S. 1977, 1985 Cum.Supp. Additionally, the requirement for the mailing of the notice of service is invested in plaintiff. [6] Similar actual notice protection is afforded for insurance company service in § 26-3-122, W.S. 1977, by duplicate mailings, by affidavit, and return-receipt proof. There are at least 27 jurisdictions with comparable corporate service provisions as taken from the Model Business Corporation Act, § 14, see Model Bus.Corp.Act Ann.2d ¶¶ 301-302, p. 345, and 1973 and 1977 Supps. South Carolina had occasion in a less egregious factual situation [7] to consider the identical provision as found in Wyoming in the case of Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority v. Welco Construction and Utilities Co., Inc., 275 S.C. 1, 266 S.E.2d 875, 876 (1980). The thoughtful discussion of that case is adopted: Appellant first argues the phrase `returnable in not less than thirty days'   refers to return of proof of service rather than to the corporate defendant's return of responsive pleadings to the complaint. We disagree. The interpretation urged by appellant finds no support from either this state's legislative history and comment or from other jurisdictions which have enacted comparable replicas of Section 14 of the Model Business Corporation Act as did South Carolina. As well, appellant's interpretation would lead to the absurd result of requiring the process server to wait thirty days before filing his proof of service while the defendant must answer within twenty days or face default. The obvious reason for this legislatively carved exception to the general statutory requirement that responsive pleadings be served within twenty days    is to allow more time for response to a summons and complaint served upon the Secretary of State because the corporation's registered agent cannot be found at the location established for personal service. We hold [that the section] prohibits a plaintiff from requiring responsive pleadings to a summons and complaint in less than thirty days from the date of substituted service upon the Secretary of State. 266 S.E.2d at 876. Comparably with the Newberry decision, this court consequently recognizes the same time as provided by Rule 12, W.R.C.P., for out-of-state service, namely 30 days, as the answer time where service is made on the Secretary of State, under the purview of § 17-1-111(b), W.S. 1977. We do not find it necessary at this time to determine whether the mistaken inclusion of a stated 20-day answer time on the summons will further invalidate the summons as jurisdictionally defective. Obviously, careful attorneys should modify the printed-form summons to accommodate the proper answer time. Likewise, perhaps little reason for objection would exist if an opportunity to plead within 30 days did exist. Cf. Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority v. Welco Construction and Utilities Co., Inc., supra. In this case, the printed-form alias summons as served on the Secretary of State provided: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk and serve upon the Plaintiff's attorney an answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. (If service upon you is made outside of the State of Wyoming, you are required to file and serve your answer to the Complaint within 30 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service). If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. The return of service as filed May 8 stated that delivery was made on April 12, 1985, on the Secretary of State. Twenty-six days thereafter, an application for entry of default and default was filed, and the application for entry and entry of the default judgment was accomplished and filed on May 10, or 28 days after the service on the Secretary of State. It is undisputed that at the time of judgment entry defendant had no notice of the existence of the litigation. Since the answer date had not expired at the date that the default was entered or the date when the judgment was rendered, the judgment as entered is void or at least voidable. [8] No denial discretion remained when the motion to vacate the default judgment was seasonably made. Vanover v. Vanover, supra. See also Emery v. Emery, Wyo., 404 P.2d 745 (1965), and National Supply Co. v. Chittim, supra.