Credit Bureau, Inc. of Georgia v. Harrison, 13485
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Citation | 101 Idaho 554,617 P.2d 858 |
| Docket Number | No. 13485,13485 |
| Parties | The CREDIT BUREAU, INCORPORATED of GEORGIA, dba CBI Collections, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Verdie Mae HARRISON, aka Vera Harrison, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1980 |
Page 858
v.
Verdie Mae HARRISON, aka Vera Harrison, Defendant-Appellant.
[101 Idaho 555]
Page 859
Graydon W. Smith, Boise, for defendant-appellant.William F. Lee, Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant Verdie Mae Harrison seeks reversal of the district court's denial of her application to vacate and set aside a default judgment in a debt collection action and cancel the writ of execution issued thereunder. Attorney fees and costs are also sought. The district court's denial is based on its finding that contrary to appellant's allegations, she had been duly served with process in the action.
Defendant-respondent The Credit Bureau (Credit Bureau) filed in Idaho district court an action against defendant-appellant Verdie Mae Harrison (Mrs. Harrison) and her former husband to collect upon a debt. On March 10, 1979, service in that action was allegedly made upon Mrs. Harrison by a process server as directed by Credit Bureau. An affidavit of service was filed with the district court. Neither Mrs. Harrison nor her former husband appeared in the collection action and a default judgment was entered. Credit Bureau procured a writ of execution followed by a sheriff's levy upon certain property of Mrs. Harrison.
Pending the sheriff's sale, Mrs. Harrison initiated this proceeding to set aside the default judgment alleging lack of personal service and lack of jurisdiction. Her contention was that she had never received service and knew nothing of the underlying debt collection until issuance of the writ of execution. The district court, following a hearing, denied the application to set aside the default, and Mrs. Harrison appeals.
The central issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the application to set aside the default judgment where the return of service indicates service of process but where the appellant contends that she never received service, that she knew nothing of the action and that the return is defective on its face. We find there was no abuse of discretion and affirm the district court.
[101 Idaho 556]
Page 860
Simply put, the question is who to believe-the process server, whose return and subsequent testimony indicate service, or the appellant, who contends no service.In the hearing on this application to set aside the default, both parties pursuant to I.R.C.P. 6(c)(4), elected to produce oral testimony at the hearing, choosing not to submit the matter solely upon affidavits.
In general, an application to set aside a default judgment is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolford v. Tankersley, 13764
...will not set aside unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Credit Bureau, Incorporated of Georgia v. Harrison, 101 Idaho 554, 617 P.2d 858 (1980). This Court has also "The rules of civil procedure clearly indicate that regard is to be given to the special opportunity ......
-
Scrimsher v. Scrimsher, 15167
...will not be set aside unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Credit Bureau, Incorporated of Georgia v. Harrison, 101 Idaho 554, 617 P.2d 858 (1980). This Court has also "The rules of civil procedure clearly indicate that regard is to be given to the special opportuni......
-
Christensen v. Rice, 17187
...opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses who appear before it. Credit Bureau, Inc. of Georgia v. Harrison, 101 Idaho 554, 617 P.2d 858 (1980). Where there is sufficient evidence to support the lower court's findings of credibility, this Court, sitting without the......
-
Reeves v. Wisenor, 13571
...order, and set the matter for hearing on an order to show cause, which was canceled after the hearing. Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Harrison, 101 Idaho 554, 617 P.2d 858 (1980). Therein there was a hotly disputed contest as to the validity of the affidavit of service of summons and complaint. The......