Court Opinion

ID: 9529773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:54:06.983233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:55.003095
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority's conclusion that at the present time service by FAX does not comport with the requirement for "service" of an adverse claim under I.C. 28-9-8-8. I also agree that until the statute is amended to so provide, or until our Supreme Court, by rule, allows for FAX service of notice, service must be accomplished under existing Trial Rule 5. I do not, however, agree that the erucial factor in determining the adequacy of service is whether a proof of service has been or can be made.
The forerunner of Trial Rule 5 was Rule 1-16. Under that Rule, pleadings were required to be "served personally or by mail". See Rules of the Indiana Supreme Court (1967). The Rule did not make provision for a proof of service. Indeed, our Supreme Court held that since the rules did not "provide for any ascertainable method of determining the fact of delivery", it was error to strike the defendants' motion for new trial upon plaintiffs' affidavit that the motion had not been received. State ex rel. Lake County Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Lake Superior Court (1959) 239 Ind. 652, 654, 159 N.E.2d 849, 850. The motion for new trial had in fact been filed with the court and according to a counter-affidavit filed in response to the motion to strike, a copy had been mailed to plaintiffs. The Supreme Court's holding was to the effect that the motion had been duly "served" by U.S. Mail as required by the Rule. Therefore, despite the lack of a "proof" of service, the Supreme Court ordered reinstatement of the motion for new trial.
To be sure, the language from Lock Joint Tube Co. v. Citizens Trust and Sav. Bank of South Bend (1941) 218 Ind. 162, 170, 31 N.E.2d 989, 993, relied upon by the majority, does imply that proof of service is a factor in determining what method of service will pass muster. That language is used, however, in the context of the mode or manner in which service is achieved, not upon an event occurring after service. The determinative consideration focuses upon a "service" which is designed to give notice, and it has been held that actual knowledge of the matters involved "is relevant and probative to an inquiry into the likely efficacy of the service employed." In Matter of R.L.W. (1994) Ind.App., 643 N.E.2d 367, 369, reh'g denied.
It may be noted that the Lock Joint Tube Co. decision, supra, was occasioned by a situation in which the record showed no service at all, a defect which was understandably fatal to the presentation of the cause in issue. That is unlike the situation presented in State ex rel. Lake County, supra, and unlike the FAX notice which was sent in this case. Here, Guthrie, or its attorney, as the entity which FAXed the notice, was clearly in a position to "make due proof thereof to the court". 218 Ind. at 170, 31 N.E.2d at 993. Therefore under the circumstances, the service, had it been by personal delivery or mail, would have sufficed even under the majority's reading of the Lock Joint Tube Co. language.
Be that as it may, proof of service which routinely follows the actual service, is but a means of establishing that service was in fact *1188accomplished. As stated in Heaton v. Peterson (1892) 6 Ind.App. 1, 7, 31 N.E. 1133, 1135: "The [proof] is not the service, but only the evidence of it." If notice is duly served, that service is valid without the formality of a formalized proof of service, so long as the actuality of service may be demonstrated. Here, the service was accomplished neither by personal delivery or by mail. It was therefore defective without regard to a proof of service.
I fully concur with Issue Two as decided by the majority and for the reasons stated herein, I join in the reversal of the judgment entered by the trial court.