Re: oh yes...

Posted by Boadicea (66.149.179.202) on June 30, 2004 at 01:47:25:

In Reply to: Re: oh yes... posted by WOK on June 30, 2004 at 01:29:31:

Oh, I wasn't making *any* judgment of anyone trying to avoid service. After all, who the *heck* wants everyone in their neighborhood (or God forbid, office) see some process server run up and hand them a summons?

But my point is that it's relatively rare, at least around here, for a suit to be dismissed for lack of prosecution because they couldn't find the defendant. Usually, it's because the CA attorney realized that the person was judgment-proof.

*Sometimes* there's a lapse of attention to detail and the plaintiff attorney will just lose track of a case. If the SOL clock starts ticking again and expires before they find out, you're in good shape. But you can't count on those little gifts from heaven. :-)

But what really irked me was to find out how many times the CA claimed "substituted service", won a default, then obtained garnishment orders. And that's in a state that says you supposedly *can't* attach assets if you've haven't obtained personal service!

If they want to get you with a default, they'll lie about it. You can't defend yourself if you're not there.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup