Re: Lady, Yes But...Please read and respond
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by MCM bait
(66.149.179.202) on March 07, 2004 at 11:41:11:
In Reply to: Re: Lady, Yes But...Please read and respond posted by LadynRed on March 07, 2004 at 11:05:44:
Lady, I believe Rusty said that the lawsuit was in CO, but that Rusty and son lived in MS and were served in MS. It seems to me that section 2 of the CO statute only applies to a minor, but that section 1 allows substitute service *if* it is with a relative at the "usual place of abode." Since this isn't the "usual place of abode" for the son and I see nothing about "the last address of record" anywhere, I suppose he could argue that service was improper. BUT...I don't see the point in it, as I stated before. Whether service was proper or improper, the process server will return proof of service to the CO court. They will get a default if he use improper service as a rationale for ignoring the summons, so I think he is extremely mislead if he is operating on the assumption that a technicality will protect him. Don't you agree?
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
