Koster v. Sullivan

Carol Sullivan (defendant) commenced an action against Lance Koster (plaintiff). Because Koster was not at home at the time of service, Sullivan’s process-server delivered and explained the summons and complaint to Koster’s sister-in-law. The process-server completed an affidavit-of-service, also called a return-of-service, stating the date and time of service and that service-of-process had been completed via substituted-service on Koster’s sister-in-law. Because Koster did not timely respond to Sullivan’s summons, the trial court entered a default judgment. Koster filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and quash service-of-process, arguing that (1) service-of-process was defective because Koster’s sister-in-law does not reside with Koster; and (2) the affidavit-of-service was facially-invalid because it failed to list the statutory elements required to effectuate substituted service. Koster did not present any evidence corroborating his claim that his sister-in-law did not reside with him at the time of service. It was undisputed that Koster’s sister-in-law was over the age of 15 and that the process-server explained the contents of the summons and complaint upon delivery. The trial court denied Koster’s motion, holding that (a) the affidavit-of-service was regular on its face; and (b) Koster failed to submit sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence to override the presumption created by the facially-regular affidavit-of-service that service-of-process was valid. Koster appealed.