Wise v. Ludlow
| Decision Date | 24 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | S–14–0148.,Nos. S–14–0147,s. S–14–0147 |
| Citation | 2015 WY 43,346 P.3d 1 |
| Parties | Mary L. WISE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Steven F. LUDLOW, Appellee (Defendant). Steven F. Ludlow, Appellant (Defendant), v. Mary L. Wise, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant, Mary L. Wise, S–14–0147: Stephen R. Winship, Winship & Winship, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee, Steven F. Ludlow, S–14–0147: Sean W. Scoggin, McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.
[¶ 1] Mary L. Wise appeals from a judgment following a jury verdict in a personal injury trial arising from a single car collision in which she was the passenger and Steven F. Ludlow was the driver. She contends the district court made erroneous decisions relating to comparative fault and to the admission and exclusion of certain evidence. Mr. Ludlow filed a cross-appeal, asserting that the district court incorrectly ruled that he had been properly served with the Summons and Complaint. We will affirm the district court in both Ms. Wise's appeal and Mr. Ludlow's cross-appeal.
[¶ 2] Ms. Wise lists a number of issues in her appeal. We reword and reorganize them as follows:
[¶ 3] Mr. Ludlow raises a single issue:
1. Did the district court err in determining it had personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ludlow?
[¶ 4] The accident at issue occurred in Casper, Wyoming, on Sunday, October 28, 2007. On that date, Mr. Ludlow consumed a significant amount of alcohol. He began drinking at his home around 9:00 a.m. He went to the Sandbar Lounge at 11:00 a.m. where he drank beers and shots of whiskey, and later rum and coke drinks. Ms. Wise arrived at the Sandbar early that afternoon, coming from a different bar where she had lunch and a couple of beers, followed by some vodka drinks. Mr. Ludlow and Ms. Wise had known each other for about two years, and had dated on occasion. They talked for a while at the Sandbar, and she asked for a ride in his Corvette. They left at about 5:00 p.m.
[¶ 5] After driving a short distance, Mr. Ludlow lost control of the car while driving 40 to 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. The vehicle struck a fence and a concrete stairway and was totaled. Mr. Ludlow admitted to the investigating officer that he was too drunk to drive and, approximately two hours after the accident, his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.14%. He later pled guilty to a charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol.
[¶ 6] Mr. Ludlow and Ms. Wise were taken to the hospital, examined, and discharged. Ms. Wise was diagnosed with a chest contusion
, bruises, and abrasions. She followed up with her regular doctor with concerns about various pains and soreness. Approximately six months after the accident, she began experiencing pain in her back, neck, and legs, and eventually was diagnosed with abnormalities in the discs of her cervical and lumbar spine.
[¶ 7] Ms. Wise filed suit on October 19, 2011. Mr. Ludlow was living in New Jersey at the time. Ms. Wise attempted to serve process on him at the New Jersey address listed on his driver's license. The affidavit of service indicates that the Summons and Complaint were served at that address on “Christine Ludlow (Mother).”
[¶ 8] Mr. Ludlow responded with a motion to dismiss pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), claiming insufficiency of service of process. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Ludlow then filed his Answer, preserving his claim of improper service as an affirmative defense. In a subsequent scheduling order, the district court set a deadline for Mr. Ludlow to file “a motion regarding the issues of service and jurisdiction.” Mr. Ludlow filed the motion on the deadline, styling it as a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the Summons and Complaint had been properly served.
[¶ 9] A four day trial began on February 3, 2014. The jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Ludlow negligent, that his negligence was a cause of Ms. Wise's injuries or damages, and that he was 55% at fault. The jury also found that Ms. Wise was 45% at fault. The jury found her total damages to be $15,000. Ms. Wise's damages were reduced by her percentage of fault, and the district court entered a judgment of $8,250 in her favor. She filed this appeal. Mr. Ludlow responded with his cross-appeal.
[¶ 10] “Proper service of process is necessary to acquire personal jurisdiction over a defendant under the due process provisions of both the federal and state constitutions.” Lundahl v. Gregg, 2014 WY 110, ¶ 7, 334 P.3d 558, 561 (Wyo.2014) (citing Gookin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., 826 P.2d 229, 232 (Wyo.1992) ). Due to the jurisdictional nature of service of process, Mr. Ludlow's issue is potentially dispositive. We will address it first.
[¶ 11] W.R.C.P. 4(d)(1) provides that service can be made “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person over the age of 14 years then residing therein.” The affidavit of service indicates that process was served at an address on Ravine Road in Verona, New Jersey. In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Ludlow claimed that this address was not his “dwelling house or usual place of abode.” To support the motion, he presented the affidavit of his mother stating that the Ravine Road address was her residence, and that Mr. Ludlow did not reside there.
[¶ 12] In opposition to the motion, Ms. Wise presented the affidavit of Detective Brian Marczewski stating that when he took the Summons and Complaint to the designated address, The district court denied the motion explaining that the return of service provided a prima facie case as to the facts of service, and that Mr. Ludlow had not met his burden of countering that prima facie case.
[¶ 13] Mr. Ludlow subsequently raised the issue again, this time in a motion for summary judgment. In addition to the affidavit of his mother presented with his earlier motion to dismiss, Mr. Ludlow included an excerpt from the transcript of his mother's deposition, in which she stated that Mr. Ludlow had lived at her home for two months during 2009, but had moved to another address by the time process was served. She also testified that, when the detective came to her home and asked if Mr. Ludlow lived there, she “responded by saying no.” He also added his affidavit stating that at the time of service, he was not living at Ravine Road, but rather at an address on Grove Avenue in Verona, New Jersey. He attached several tax forms listing the Grove Avenue address.
[¶ 14] Ms. Wise opposed the motion. She again relied on the affidavit of the detective who had left the Summons and Complaint with Mr. Ludlow's mother. She also attached an excerpt from Mr. Ludlow's deposition in which he stated that his driver's license still listed the Ravine Road address, and that he stored a tool box at his mother's home. Ms. Wise also pointed to portions of the deposition of Mr. Ludlow's mother in which she stated that Mr. Ludlow sometimes received advertisements in the mail at her address.
[¶ 15] The district court denied Mr. Ludlow's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact. Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC, 2008 WY 101, ¶ 8, 191 P.3d 125, 128 (Wyo.2008). Because there was conflicting evidence on the question of Mr. Ludlow's usual place of abode, summary judgment was precluded. However, in the usual course of events, the denial of a motion for summary judgment results in a determination of the issue at trial. That did not happen in this case. In denying Mr. Ludlow's motion for summary judgment, the district court decided the service of process issue and ruled in Ms. Wise's favor.
[¶ 16] A decision in Ms. Wise's favor would have been appropriate if the issue had come before the court on a motion to dismiss. W.R.C.P. 12(d) provides that defenses of lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, failure to state a claim, and failure to join a party “shall be heard and determined before trial on application of any party, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial.” When a defendant files a motion contesting the court's personal jurisdiction, “[t]he court may consider any allegations set forth in the complaint and any evidence which may be introduced in a hearing on the issue.”Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 886 P.2d 265, 267 (Wyo.1994) (citing McAvoy v. District Court of Denver, 757 P.2d 633, 634–35 (Colo.1988) ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toth v. State
...was prejudicial. The appellant must show a reasonable probability that, without the error, the verdict might have been different.Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 42, 346 P.3d 1, 12 (Wyo.2015) (quoting Glenn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2011 WY 126, ¶ 12, 262 P.3d 177, 182 (Wyo.2011) ). Limits on......
-
Bean v. State
...as well as the credence to be given to the testimony of the witnesses, is wholly within the province of the jury.” Id.; see also Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 53, 346 P.3d 1, 14 (Wyo.2015) (“An expert's conclusions may be wrong, but if his methodology is reliable, the accuracy of his conclu......
-
Dugan v. State
...bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. In re GAC, 2017 WY 65, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d 411, 419 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 42, 346 P.3d 1, 12 (Wyo. 2015) ) (other citations omitted). Id.[¶52] Mr. Dugan also claims his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Am......
-
Ailport v. Ailport
...question of law which we review de novo. " In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7, 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19, 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015) ). We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to gra......