Court Opinion

ID: 9576499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:25:16.268243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:07.747824
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the disposition of this case according to the majority opinion. In my judgment, the case should either be reversed or affirmed. A remand for the purpose of effecting a determination as to whether Colley exercised due diligence in locating Dyer strikes me as an exercise in futility that can only lead to frustration for all concerned. I would hold that Colley did pursue and show the diligence “which is reasonable under the circumstances.” Carlson v. Bos, 740 P.2d 1269, 1277, n. 13 (Utah 1987). Consequently, I would reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss and permit the case to go forward to trial.
It is my understanding that the majority of the court would not find that the failure to allude to “# 57” in the affidavit filed in support of substitute service was a fatal defect in the proceedings. The order of the trial court was not affirmed on that narrow ground. Instead, the case is reversed and remanded for a further showing of due diligence.
I rely upon the factual discussion by Chief Justice Urbigkit, in his specially concurring opinion, in my analysis of the effort that may be attempted on remand. In light of that discuásion, I cannot conceive of anything that Colley might now do or could have done before service upon the Secretary of State to locate Teddy Ray Dyer. It is obvious that Dyer has chosen to avoid any attempt to communicate with Colley either personally or officially. Like Chief Justice Urbigkit, “I am left with *577doubt as to what any competent and diligent attorney could or should have additionally done to locate Dyer.” (Cone. op. at 574.) In the language of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company, 339 U.S. 306, 317, 70 S.Ct. 652, 658, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), it is clear that as a matter of fact Dyer is one “whose ... whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained....” If that perception of fact is sound, then it should follow that any effort of Colley or her counsel, diligent or otherwise, was doomed to failure.
Without denigrating the authority cited in the majority opinion in any way, I would permit the party attempting substituted service to either demonstrate due diligence in endeavoring to locate the absent defendant or, in the alternative, to rely upon a record that demonstrates, like this one does, that the absent defendant could not be found by anyone, including his own insurance carrier. This alternative would avoid an open-ended standard with respect to what efforts should be undertaken to manifest due diligence. (Is it enough to demonstrate that there was no forwarding address, or must the plaintiff engage a private investigator in every possible place and produce a negative report?) Instead, it would permit the plaintiff to prove the facts with respect to whether the defendant could be located. Those facts are present in this record; they demonstrate that Dyer could not be found; and they fully satisfy the question as to whether it was possible to give such notice to Dyer “as to make it reasonably probable that he will receive actual notice.” Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 19, 48 S.Ct. 259, 260, 72 L.Ed. 446 (1928). If it is not possible to give that notice, then there is no reason to require a demonstration of due diligence to satisfy the test of due process under the federal constitution. The law should not require any futile endeavors.
I would reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss, and remand the case for trial.