Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3631,79-3631 |
| Citation | 635 F.2d 434 |
| Parties | AETNA BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSAL DECOR & INTERIOR DESIGN, INC., et al., Defendants, Gary L. Kemp and Sharon L. Kemp, Defendants-Appellants. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rowland & Keim, Cary Stephen Watson, Sam E. Rowland, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
Roger B. Greenberg, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before GOLDBERG, GARZA and TATE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a final judgment against the appellants, Sharon and Gary Kemp, jointly and severally with the defendants, Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., for the sum of $71,153.31, with interest. Because the record does not show that valid service of process was made upon the Kemps, we must reverse the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings.
Aetna Business Credit, Inc. (Aetna) brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on a sworn account against Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc. (Universal), and on a contract of guarantee against the Kemps. In support of the court's jurisdiction and venue, Aetna alleged that all defendants were citizens of Texas and residents of the Southern District of Texas.
An attempt to serve the Kemps at their Texas residence proved unsuccessful, and the citation was returned unexecuted with a notation that the Kemps had moved to Colorado. Process was then served through the Secretary of State of Texas, pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(7) 1 and the Texas long-arm statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2031b. 2 The citation was sent by registered mail to the Kemp's post office box in Colorado, but was returned to the Secretary unclaimed. A private investigator was then appointed by the court to personally serve the Kemps in Colorado, but nothing in the record indicates that service was ever successfully effected by this means.
The Kemps answered Aetna's complaint, alleging, inter alia, that they had been improperly served. The Texas long-arm statute, the Kemps contended, allowed service through the Secretary of State only when the party to be served was a nonresident of the state; since the Kemps were residents of Texas, service upon them through the Secretary was not proper.
Aetna's motion for summary judgment was granted as to Universal, and partially granted as to the Kemps. Specifically, the court determined that factual questions relating to the adequacy of the service of process upon the Kemps precluded summary judgment for Aetna on that issue, but that all other issues were resolved in favor of Aetna. Thus, the only issue remaining for trial was whether the Kemps had been properly served.
The Kemps were subsequently given notice to appear at the Houston offices of Aetna's attorneys to be deposed. The Kemps did not appear for those depositions. Aetna immediately moved in the district court for sanctions against the Kemps for their failure to appear. That motion was granted, and the court struck the Kemps' only remaining defense that of improper service of process and entered judgment against them jointly, and severally with Universal, for the full amount of the debt. The Kemps' subsequent motion for a new trial was denied and final judgment was entered on October 11, 1979. From that judgment the Kemps bring this appeal, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing so drastic a sanction for their nonappearance as the striking of their only remaining defense.
We need not delve into the particulars of the Kemps' contentions. From the record, it appears that the district court never determined that valid service of process had been made upon the Kemps. Absent such a determination, no judgment against them can stand.
In the absence of valid service of process, proceedings against a party are void. E. g., Mooney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RDP Techs., Inc. v. Cambi As
...of process has been contested, the plaintiff ‘must bear the burden of establishing its validity.’ ”) (quoting Aetna Bus. Credit v. Universal Decor, 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir.1981)). Here, then, RDP has the burden of establishing effective service of process on Cambi. RDP twice attempted to......
-
Prof'l Led Lighting, Ltd. v. Aadyn Tech., LLC
...against that party are void.” Kelly v. Florida, 233 F.R.D. 632, 634 (S.D.Fla.2005) (citing Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir.1981) ); see also In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir.2003) (“Generally, where ......
-
McCoy v. McCormick
... ... also SEC v. AMX, Int'l, Inc. , 7 F.3d 71, 75 (5th ... Cir. 1993) ... 1990); Aetna ... Business Credit, Inc. v. Universal r & Interior ... Design, Inc. , 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th ... ...
-
Minor v. La. State Univ. at Eunice
... ... lesser sanction of zero credit for the particular exam upon ... which ... Teledyne Movible ... Offshore, Inc. , 776 F.2d 1304, 1305 (5th Cir. 1985)); ... Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & ... Interior Design, Inc. , 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. Unit ... ...