Kalakosky v. Collins
| Decision Date | 11 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 125 Ariz. 326,609 P.2d 596 |
| Parties | Deborah KALAKOSKY, an unmarried person, Petitioner, v. The Honorable John P. COLLINS, Judge of the Superior Court, Pima County; and W. Russell Graham and Patricia Graham, husband and wife, real parties in interest, Respondents. 3538. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
An order of the respondent court denying petitioner's motion to dismiss a complaint filed against her is the subject of this special action. As we agree with petitioner that the service of the summons and complaint on her attorney was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over her, we assume jurisdiction.
Briefly, the events preceding the motion to dismiss are as follows. On July 5, 1979, petitioner executed a power of attorney giving Michael A. Blum her power of attorney for the purpose of selling the house and real estate, livestock and household furnishings as listed in the petition for dissolution of marriage, number D-26457, and authorizing him to use such funds as were obtained from these sales to pay petitioner's share of the debts listed on this same petition for dissolution. On October 6, 1979, Mr. Blum signed a deposit receipt and agreement for the sale of the real estate. On December 26, 1979, real parties in interest Graham, purchasers of the property, served a summons and complaint on petitioner, a named defendant, by service upon her attorney Michael A. Blum. A motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner, alleging lack of jurisdiction over her and insufficiency of process. The Grahams opposed the motion to dismiss, relying on attached copies of the deposit receipt and agreement and the power of attorney.
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 4(d)(1), authorizes services of process "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." The term "agent authorized by appointment" means actual appointment, express or implied, for the purpose of receiving service of process. Schultz v. Schultz, 436 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1971); Nelson v. Swift, 271 F.2d 504 (D.C. Cir. 1959); U. S. v. Marple Community Record, Inc., 335 F.Supp. 95 (E.D.Pa.1971); Foster v. Lewis, 78 Nev. 330, 372 P.2d 679 (1962). See also, Annot., 11 L.Ed.2d 1036; Annot., 26 A.L.R.2d 1086; 2 Moore's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...its state court action was authorized to accept service of process for Prudential in the Pochiro action. See Kalakosky v. Collins, 125 Ariz. 326, 609 P.2d 596, 596-97 (App.1980) (service of a complaint on an attorney ineffective unless attorney has specific authority to accept service); Slo......
-
McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...by legislative enactment." Bowen v. Graham, 684 P.2d 165, 168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (citations omitted); see Kalakosky v. Collins, 609 P.2d 596, 597 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980) ("The term 'agent authorized by appointment' means actual appointment, express or implied, for the purpose of receiving ......
-
Iknadosian v. Mahon, 1 CA-CV 13-0205
...authorized agent to accept service of process only if they are "actually appointed" by another person to do so. Kalakosky v. Collins, 125 Ariz. 326, 327, 609 P.2d 596, 597 (1980); Bowen v. Graham, 140 Ariz. 593, 596, 684 P.2d 165, 168 (App. 1984). One of the reasons for strict adherence to ......
-
Bowen v. Graham
...or law" contained in Rule 4(d)(1) mean, in the former category, actual appointment to receive service of process, Kalakosky v. Collins, 125 Ariz. 326, 609 P.2d 596 (App.1980), and in the latter category, authorization by legislative enactment. Kadota v. Hosogai, supra; and see 4 C. Wright &......