Summary
holding that a trial court had no jurisdiction when based on a “wittingly or unwittingly falsified” statement of a process server
Summary of this case from Bel Courtyard Invs., Inc. v. WolfeOpinion
No. 13805.
April 4, 1975.
Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Stewart M. Hanson, J.
Leon A. Halgren, Ryberg, McCoy Halgren, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Gayle Dean Hunt, Mikel M. Boley, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Appeal from a judgment entered on a complaint based on accrued amounts allegedly due in a divorce action. Reversed with costs to defendant.
Mr. N, a California resident, was served with process by a California peace officer, who, under oath in a return of service of summons, wittingly or unwittingly falsified the facts by stating therein that he endorsed the date and place of address, together with signing his name on the Summons, as is required by Rule 4(j), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The paper involved shows, without controversy, that such statement was untrue.
Service of process here was defective, not only because of the false return but because it required answer in 20 days instead of 30 days. Such service is jurisdictional. Defendant, as was his right, appeared specially and raised the point.
Title 78-27-25 et seq., Utah Code Annotated 1953.
Rule 4(j), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case is remanded with instruction to vacate the judgment and let the parties take it from there.
ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.