Service of Process on Individuals

In order to initiate a lawsuit against an individual defendant, a copy of the summons and complaint (called “process”) must be served on the individual.  This formally notifies the defendant that a lawsuit has been initiated against them, and lets them know the deadline to respond to the complaint.  However, serving an individual with process when they cannot be located and may be evading service can be challenging.  The individual defendant must either be served personally, meaning the individual is personally handed the summons and complaint, or they must be served at their usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein.

Assuming the individual defendant cannot be personally handed service, their “usual abode” must be identified.  This must be a center of the individual’s domestic activity such that service left with a family member is reasonably calculated to come to the individual’s attention within the statutory time limit for them to appear. 

So how do you determine if a residence is the defendant’s usual place of abode?  If the matter is debatable, there is certain evidence courts have consistently considered relevant in determining whether the residence qualifies.  If a person at the residence accepts process and represents that the individual defendant lives there, this is relevant.  If the address is on file for the individual defendant with the post office, Department of Licensing, property tax authorities, or the defendant’s insurer, this is evidence that the residence is the individual’s usual place of abode.  Other persuasive factors include if the defendant has an ownership interest in the house, voter registration information, driver’s license, car registration and bill of sale, and notification of a change in address to creditors.

There are also factors that weigh against finding a residence is the defendant’s usual place of abode.  Convincing evidence that the defendant has moved, such as changing any of the address identifiers in the previous paragraph, weighs against such a finding.  A hotel is not a usual place of abode for individuals who live their temporarily while getting medical treatment nearby. 

Challenging questions arise when there are some factors leaning in opposite directions.  Where a couple had moved to another city, but the wife returned to the former residence to move furniture, service on the wife was not effective service on the husband because the former residence was no longer their usual place of abode, even though they still owned it.  Where an individual owned property but leased it to their children and did not reside their, it was not the individual’s usual place of abode, even though the property was still listed as their voting registration and property tax billing address.