Court Opinion

ID: 9797031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:11:31.45629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:08.227843
License: Public Domain

*732Justice KIDWELL
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s conclusion that I.R.C.P. 4(e)(1) was violated.
Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides in relevant part that whenever the summons is served by publication, “copies of the summons and complaint shall be mailed to the last known address most likely to give notice to the party.” I.R.C.P. 4(e)(1) (emphasis added). As the record shows, there was no address “most likely to give notice to” Gwynn. The McGloons’ agent personally visited Gwynn’s former landlord, her former place of employment, and contacted her parents, all without obtaining an address likely to provide notice to Gwynn. With no mailing address, the best the McGloons could do in notifying Gwynn of the action was to substantially comply with the rule by publishing the Notice for the requisite amount of time, which they did. Mills v. Smiley, 9 Idaho 317, 76 P. 783 (1903); McKnight v. Grant, 13 Idaho 629, 92 P. 989 (1907) (substantial compliance with rule is all that is required)(decision under prior rule).
The reluctance of this Court to embrace substantial compliance in factual situations such as presented here should be re-visited.