Court Opinion

ID: 9616873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:50:37.06967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:45.432987
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent in this case which can only be described as a lawyer’s nightmare come true.
While it is obvious that until April 12, 1984, appellant was diligent in attempting to locate and serve Pruitt, his efforts did not result in valid service of process. He was provided with both her home and work addresses in her answers to his interrogatories which were filed May 1, but did not attempt to serve her at her residence until early June. Even after he was informed by her affidavits supporting the motion to dismiss that Becker did not reside at her address, he made no further attempts at service. There is no evidence that Pruitt was attempting to avoid service, her affidavit states that she was a resident of Texas when the complaint was filed, that she moved to Georgia on January 23, 1984, and that she resided with friends at several different addresses until she moved into a trailer at the address provided in the answers to interrogatories. When she learned of appellant’s attempts to serve Goldie Fields, she immediately contacted Brim’s attorney and provided her address in the answers to interrogatories. There is absolutely no evidence that she ever waived service.
I believe Trammel v. Nat. Bank of Ga., 159 Ga. App. 850 (285 SE2d 590) (1981), cited by the majority, to be inapplicable in the instant case because that case involved service upon the defendant’s twelve-year-old daughter who resided in his household. The issue to be decided was whether a twelve-year-old was “a person of suitable age and discretion” within the meaning of Code Ann. § 81A-104 (d) (7) (presently OCGA § 9-11-4 (d) (7)). I can find no authority which permits service upon a mere visitor at the defendant’s residence. Indeed, Trammel, supra at 852, states “ ‘no case can proceed without service upon the defendant in one of the modes prescribed by law, unless service is waived’ [Cit.], and “ ‘the necessity of service is not dispensed with by the mere fact that the defendant may in some way learn or have actual knowledge of the filing of the action.’ Radcliffe v. Boyd Motor Lines, 129 Ga. App. 725, 731 (201 SE2d 4).”
Accordingly, I would find that the trial court did not err in granting Pruitt’s motion and in dismissing the complaint. I am authorized *327to state that Presiding Judge McMurray, Presiding Judge Birdsong, and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.
Decided February 7, 1986
Rehearing denied March 19, 1986
Stephen L. Goldner, Glenn S. Bass, for appellant.
Robert M. Travis, J. Joel Mercer, Jr., for appellee.