
Originally Posted by
Fr_Chuck
If the process server is taking to the last known address and it is served to a close family member, why would that not be legal process.
...
Let me give you a for instance: return of service recites that the process server "spoke to __, mother of defendant. She said that defendant no longer lived there, but knew where defendant presently lives. She claimed that the defendant consented to my giving the process to her, which I did."
Plaintiff moves for default, based upon this return. If I were the judge, I would point out that the process server is charged with personally serving the defendant or (in some jurisdictions) leaving the process with someone, at the defendant's residence, if that person resides there. That requirement is clearly not met. I would further point out that the process server is to serve the process, and not delegate the task to the defendant's mother.

Originally Posted by
Fr_Chuck
... In addition, it the process is not contested it goes though and stands. Better than perhaps ending up with service by publication and the poster having no idea the court action has ever happened.
The address they are trying to serve is obviously one used by the poster, and the mother and the poster are trying it appears to get out of being served by not providing them a legal address to serve to.
All of this may be true. Doesn't matter. Either he is legally served or he is not.