Robert G. Hicks v. City of Hopkinsville, Sewerage and Water Works Commission, D/B/A Hopkinsville Water Environment Authority ( 2022 )

RENDERED: APRIL 8, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0219-MR
ROBERT G. HICKS, INDIVIDUALLY;
AND ROBERT G. HICKS,
TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERTA
CHERRY HICKS TESTAMENTARY TRUST APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE ANDREW SELF, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00875
CITY OF HOPKINSVILLE, SEWERAGE
AND WATER WORKS COMMISSION,
D/B/A HOPKINSVILLE WATER
ENVIRONMENT AUTHORITY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART,
AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: Robert G. Hicks, individually, and Robert G. Hicks,
Trustee of the Roberta Cherry Hicks Testamentary Trust (together referred to as
“Appellant”), appeal from an interlocutory order and judgment of the Christian
Circuit Court, and from an order denying a motion to strike the interlocutory order
and judgment. Appellant argues that the Christian Circuit Court erred in failing to
rule that service of process was not properly accomplished, and that the circuit
court therefore lacked jurisdiction to sustain a petition for condemnation filed by
City of Hopkinsville, Sewerage and Water Works Commission, d/b/a Hopkinsville
Water Environment Authority (“Appellee”). For the reasons addressed below, we
reverse the interlocutory opinion and judgment insofar as it holds that Appellee
properly served the Trust, affirm it in all other respects, and remand the matter for
further proceedings. Further, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion to
strike.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In approximately 2017, Appellee sought to begin construction of a
public water main adjacent to Highway 41A in Christian County, Kentucky. Prior
to commencing construction, Appellee tried to obtain several utility easements
from affected landowners along the path of the construction. Appellant owns one
of those parcels.
Appellant and Appellee engaged in a series of written
communications over the years that followed. Despite diligent effort, Appellee
was unable to persuade Appellant to grant the necessary easement. In order to
-2-
move the project forward, on November 17, 2020, Appellee filed a petition for
condemnation in Christian Circuit Court seeking to secure a utility easement on
Appellant’s parcel pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) Chapter 416
(eminent domain).
Appellee then sought to serve Appellant, who resides in Florida.
Pursuant to KRS 454.210, Appellee prepared summonses to be served by and
through the Kentucky Secretary of State. The summons to Mr. Hicks in his
individual capacity was mailed by the Secretary of State to an address in Leesburg,
Florida, while the summons to Mr. Hicks, Trustee, was mailed to an address in
Jacksonville, Florida. Both mailings were sent via certified mail with a return
receipt requested.
Thereafter, the Kentucky Secretary of State received notice from the
United States Postal Service that the summons addressed to Mr. Hicks, Trustee,
was undeliverable. The summons mailed to Mr. Hicks, individually, was
presumed to have been delivered, though the Secretary of State did not receive a
signed return receipt.
Having received no response from Appellant, on January 11, 2021,
Appellee filed a motion for interlocutory order and judgment pursuant to KRS
416.610. Appellee attempted to serve Appellant with this motion at the same
-3-
addresses previously used. Mr. Hicks, individually, received in the mail a copy of
the motion.
On January 21, 2021, Appellant contacted counsel for Appellee and
stated that he had received Appellee’s motion, but was never served with the
underlying petition. Appellee, through counsel, then emailed to Appellant all prior
pleadings. Appellant immediately filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of
proper service.
On January 22, 2021, the Christian Circuit Court entered the
interlocutory order and judgment pursuant to KRS 416.610. The order and
judgment stated that Commissioners had been appointed per KRS 416.580, and
that Appellant had been properly served with the summons and petition. The court
ordered that Appellee could take possession of the property after payment of
$21,000 to the clerk of court. On January 26, 2021, the court denied Appellant’s
motion to dismiss.
Finally, on February 1, 2021, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider,
along with a supportive affidavit, in which he asserted that he had never been
served with the petition in either his individual or Trustee capacities. A hearing on
the matter was conducted on February 17, 2021, resulting in an order denying the
relief sought. This appeal followed.
-4-
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The circuit court’s factual findings shall not be disturbed unless they
are clearly erroneous, i.e., not supported by substantial evidence. Kentucky Rules
of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 52.01; Mays v. Porter, 398 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Ky. App.
2013). The application of Kentucky’s long arm statute, KRS 454.210, to the facts
is a question of law which we review de novo. Worrell v. Stivers, 523 S.W.3d 436,
439 (Ky. App. 2017).
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Christian Circuit Court committed reversible
error in rendering the interlocutory order and judgment sustaining Appellee’s
petition, and from the order denying a motion to strike the interlocutory order and
judgment.1 He argues that the interlocutory order and judgment were made on the
knowingly false representations of Appellee’s counsel to the circuit court that
process had been properly served on Appellant on a date certain. According to
Appellant, Appellee made this claim despite counsel’s knowing that 1) service to
the Trust was mailed to the wrong address and was returned as undeliverable, 2)
Mr. Hicks, individually, and himself a licensed attorney, stated that he was not
served,2 and, 3) even though service to both locations was attempted by certified
1
The parties agree that the interlocutory order and judgment are appealable.
2
Later in the proceedings, Appellant submitted an affidavit that he never received the summons.
-5-
mail, neither of the green signature cards was returned to the Secretary of State.
Appellant asserts that because proper service was not made, the circuit court was
never vested with jurisdiction over Appellant, and committed a reversible error by
allowing Appellee to condemn his property interest without due process. In the
alternative, Appellant argues that his claim of improper service should have, at a
bare minimum, required the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to
determine if service had been made in conformity to the civil rules and the
statutory law.
Appellant goes on to argue that Kentucky’s long arm statute, KRS
454.210, is not applicable to the instant facts. In support of this argument, he
directs our attention to Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v Beach, 336 S.W.3d 51(Ky. 2011), and Hinners v Robey, 336 S.W.3d 891 (Ky. 2011), which he argues
stand for the proposition that the application of the long arm statute is limited to
the nine specific situations set out in KRS 454.210(2)(a)1.-9. The substance of this
argument is that Appellee’s petition did not arise from any of the activities,
contracts, or circumstances identified in the long arm statute as an essential
predicate for Kentucky’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident.
Appellant also notes that Appellee never asserted the applicability of the long arm
statute until its response to Appellant’s motion to reconsider. He further argues
that even if the long arm statute is applicable, it cannot be satisfied by providing
-6-
the wrong mailing address to the Secretary of State. He argues that the failure of
actual service on the Trustee is obvious because the Secretary of State and
Appellee received notice that the attempted service was undeliverable.
Lastly, Appellant argues that Appellee’s failure to properly serve the
petition is a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Appellant asserts that Appellee’s taking of his property
interest without notice and in violation of the relevant statutory and case law
constitutes an impermissible breach of his constitutional protection against
property deprivation without due process of law. Citing a myriad of federal case
law, Appellant argues that a state court may not exercise jurisdiction over persons
and property absent a proper notice to all parties of the proceedings which affect
their constitutional rights. Appellant’s property interest, he argues, is clearly such
a right, and the Christian Circuit Court’s deprivation of this right without proper
notice cannot stand. Appellant seeks an opinion and order declaring the circuit
court’s action void, and imposing sanctions based on the unnecessary amount of
time and effort required to oppose the unlawful taking which could have easily
been remedied via proper service.
In response, Appellee argues that it fully complied with the long arm
statute by tendering to the Secretary of State the correct address for Mr. Hicks in
his individual capacity – the same address through which the parties had
-7-
previously corresponded – and which was known to be a correct address. As to the
failure to serve Mr. Hicks, Trustee, Appellee asserts that no harm can be found as
Mr. Hicks, individually, and Mr. Hicks, Trustee, are the same person. Notice to
one, Appellee argues, satisfies the notice requirement to the other. Appellee
distinguishes Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC as inapplicable to the instant facts,
and argues that Appellee strictly complied with the statutory scheme for giving
notice to nonresidents via the long arm statute.
Appellee directs us to Haven Point Enterprises, Inc. v. United
Kentucky Bank, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 393 (Ky. 1985), in which jurisdiction was
properly exercised over a nonresident even though no signed receipt was received
for the mailing of notice. Appellee asserts that this holding is consistent with the
general rule that a properly addressed mailing is presumed to have reached its
destination. As applied herein, Appellee argues that we may presume that the
notice served on Mr. Hicks, individually, reached its destination irrespective of the
fact that no signed receipt was returned to the Secretary of State. Appellee
requests an opinion sustaining the interlocutory order and judgment on appeal.
KRS 416.550 addresses a governmental entity’s right to condemn a
citizen’s property interest. It states,
[w]henever any condemnor cannot, by agreement with
the owner thereof, acquire the property right, privileges
or easements needed for any of the uses or purposes for
which the condemnor is authorized by law, to exercise its
-8-
right of eminent domain, the condemnor may condemn
such property, property rights, privileges or easements
pursuant to the provisions of KRS 416.550 to 416.670. It
is not a prerequisite to an action to attempt to agree with
an owner who is unknown or who, after reasonable
effort, cannot be found within the state or with an owner
who is under a disability.
Kentucky’s long arm statute, KRS 454.210, provides that,
(1) As used in this section, “person” includes an
individual, his executor, administrator, or other
personal representative, or a corporation, partnership,
association, or any other legal or commercial entity,
who is a nonresident of this Commonwealth.
(2)(a) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a
claim arising from the person’s:
1. Transacting any business in this
Commonwealth;
2. Contracting to supply services or goods
in this Commonwealth;
3. Causing tortious injury by an act or
omission in this Commonwealth;
4. Causing tortious injury in this
Commonwealth by an act or omission
outside this Commonwealth if he
regularly does or solicits business, or
engages in any other persistent course of
conduct, or derives substantial revenue
from goods used or consumed or services
rendered in this Commonwealth,
provided that the tortious injury
occurring in this Commonwealth arises
out of the doing or soliciting of business
-9-
or a persistent course of conduct or
derivation of substantial revenue within
the Commonwealth;
5. Causing injury in this Commonwealth to
any person by breach of warranty
expressly or impliedly made in the sale
of goods outside this Commonwealth
when the seller knew such person would
use, consume, or be affected by, the
goods in this Commonwealth, if he also
regularly does or solicits business, or
engages in any other persistent course of
conduct, or derives substantial revenue
from goods used or consumed or services
rendered in this Commonwealth;
6. Having an interest in, using, or
possessing real property in this
Commonwealth, providing the claim
arises from the interest in, use of, or
possession of the real property, provided,
however, that such in personam
jurisdiction shall not be imposed on a
nonresident who did not himself
voluntarily institute the relationship, and
did not knowingly perform, or fail to
perform, the act or acts upon which
jurisdiction is predicated;
7. Contracting to insure any person,
property, or risk located within this
Commonwealth at the time of
contracting;
8. Committing sexual intercourse in this
state which intercourse causes the birth
of a child when:
-10-
a. The father or mother or both are
domiciled in this state;
b. There is a repeated pattern of
intercourse between the father and
mother in this state; or
c. Said intercourse is a tort or a crime
in this state; or
9. Making a telephone solicitation, as
defined in KRS 367.46951, or a charitable
solicitation as defined in KRS
367.650 via telecommunication, into the
Commonwealth.
(b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely
upon this section, only a claim arising from acts
enumerated in this section may be asserted against
him.
(3)(a) When personal jurisdiction is authorized by this
section, service of process may be made:
1. In any manner authorized by the
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. On such person, or any agent of such
person, in any county in this
Commonwealth, where he may be found;
or
3. On the Secretary of State who, for this
purpose, shall be deemed to be the
statutory agent of such person.
(b) The clerk of the court in which the action is
brought shall issue a summons against the
defendant named in the complaint. The clerk
shall execute the summons either by:
-11-
1. Sending by certified mail two (2) true
copies to the Secretary of State and shall
also mail with the summons two (2)
attested copies of plaintiff’s complaint;
or
2. Transmitting an electronically attested
copy of the complaint and summons to
the Secretary of State via the Kentucky
Court of Justice electronic filing system.
(c) The Secretary of State shall, within seven (7)
days of receipt thereof in his office, mail a copy
of the summons and complaint to the defendant
at the address given in the complaint. The letter
shall be posted by certified mail, return receipt
requested, and shall bear the return address of
the Secretary of State. The clerk shall make the
usual return to the court, and in addition the
Secretary of State shall make a return to the
court showing that the acts contemplated by
this statute have been performed, and shall
attach to his return the registry receipt, if any.
Summons shall be deemed to be served on the
return of the Secretary of State and the action
shall proceed as provided in the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
(d) The clerk mailing the summons to the
Secretary of State shall mail to him, at the same
time, a fee of ten dollars ($10), which shall be
taxed as costs in the action. The fee for a
summons transmitted electronically pursuant to
this subsection shall be transmitted to the
Secretary of State on a periodic basis.
(4) When the exercise of personal jurisdiction is
authorized by this section, any action or suit may be
-12-
brought in the county wherein the plaintiff resides or
where the cause of action or any part thereof arose.
(5) A court of this Commonwealth may exercise
jurisdiction on any other basis authorized in the
Kentucky Revised Statutes or by the Rules of Civil
Procedure, notwithstanding this section.
Appellant acknowledges that Appellee has the statutory right to
condemn real property within the geographic boundary of its jurisdiction. The first
question for our consideration, then, is whether the long arm statute is the proper
means by which to give notice to a nonresident condemnee. We must answer this
question in the affirmative.
“[D]ue process requires . . . that in order to subject a
defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present
within the territory of the forum, he have certain
minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of
the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed.
95 (1945). As such, due process protects an individual’s
liberty interest in not being subject to the binding
judgments of a forum with which he has established no
meaningful “contacts, ties, or relations.” Id. at 319, 66 S.
Ct. 154. By requiring that individuals have “fair warning
that a particular activity may subject [them] to the
jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign,” the Due Process
Clause “gives a degree of predictability to the legal
system that allows potential defendants to structure their
primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to
where that conduct will and will not render them liable to
suit[.]” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444
U.S. 286, 297, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980);
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-472,
105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985).
-13-
Hinners, 336 S.W.3d at 897 (footnote omitted).
Mr. Hicks, individually, and as Trustee, are separate and distinct
“persons” as contemplated by KRS 454.210(1), and each has the necessary
minimum contacts with the Commonwealth sufficient to invoke jurisdiction.
These minimum contacts are found by virtue of Mr. Hicks’ and the Trust’s
ownership interests in the parcel of real property located within the borders of the
Commonwealth. The circuit court may properly exercise jurisdiction over a person
who possesses a property interest within the Commonwealth. KRS
454.210(2)(a)6.
KRS 454.210(3)(a)3. establishes the Kentucky Secretary of State as
the agent for nonresident persons, and describes the means by which process is
served. The Secretary of State complied with this provision by sending separate
certified mailings, return receipt requested, to Mr. Hicks at the two addresses
provided by Appellee. Appellee properly relied on the long arm statute to attempt
service of process on Mr. Hicks and the Trust.
The next question, then, is whether Mr. Hicks, individually, was
properly served. KRS 454.210(3)(c), cited above, states:
The Secretary of State shall, within seven (7) days of
receipt thereof in his office, mail a copy of the summons
and complaint to the defendant at the address given in the
complaint. The letter shall be posted by certified mail,
return receipt requested, and shall bear the return address
-14-
of the Secretary of State. The clerk shall make the usual
return to the court, and in addition the Secretary of State
shall make a return to the court showing that the acts
contemplated by this statute have been performed, and
shall attach to his return the registry receipt, if any.
Summons shall be deemed to be served on the return of
the Secretary of State and the action shall proceed as
provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Emphasis added.)
The record demonstrates that the Secretary of State performed the acts
contemplated by the statute. Within seven days of receipt, the Secretary mailed the
summons and petition to Mr. Hicks, individually, to the correct address by certified
mail, return receipt requested. Mr. Hicks acknowledges that the address was
correct, as it was the same address successfully used by Appellee to communicate
with Appellant both before and after the filing of this action. The Secretary of
State then made “a return” to the court, i.e., an acknowledgement that the required
acts were completed. While a signed return receipt would have left no doubt as to
delivery, the lack of a receipt does not render the service invalid as the statute
provides that the Secretary of State will attach the receipt “if any.” Id.
“[A]ctual notice of the lawsuit is not required to effectuate service as
long as it is done in compliance with the applicable statute.” HP Hotel
Management, Inc. v. Layne, 536 S.W.3d 208, 214 (Ky. App. 2017) (citing Cox v.
Rueff Lighting Co., 589 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Ky. App. 1979)). Further, a recipient’s
inattention to the mail he receives does not constitute good cause for a finding of
-15-
lack of service.3 VerraLab Ja LLC v. Cemerlic, 584 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Ky. 2019).
As the Secretary of State complied with KRS 454.210(3)(c) by mailing the
summons and petition to the correct address via certified mail, return receipt
requested, and because the statute and the case law unambiguously provide that the
summons is deemed served by the Secretary of State’s return to the court, we find
no error in the Christian Circuit Court’s conclusion that Mr. Hicks, individually,
was properly served.
We next turn to the question of whether Mr. Hicks, Trustee, was
properly served. The certified mail sent to the Trust in Jacksonville, Florida, was
returned to the Secretary of State as undeliverable. While KRS 454.210(3)(c)
provides that service is effective when the Secretary of State reports to the court
that the summons has been mailed and a return receipt (if any) received, implicit in
the statutory language is the requirement that the summons must be mailed to the
correct address. In the matter before us, notice to the Trust was not mailed to the
correct address. As such, it was not possible that the Trust was properly served.
The circuit court’s finding that the Trust was properly served is clearly erroneous.
Complicating matters is the fact that Mr. Hicks, individually, is the
same person as Mr. Hicks, Trustee. Appellee asserts that service on Mr. Hicks in
3
There is no evidence that Mr. Hicks, individually, was inattentive to his mail, though he did
acknowledge that he frequently travels and is not at home to see his mail.
-16-
his individual capacity effectively serves Mr. Hicks, Trustee, and that no harm has
resulted therefrom. We disagree. We have no basis for concluding that service to
Mr. Hicks, individually, in Leesburg, Florida, constitutes constructive service or
other legal notice to Mr. Hicks, Trustee, sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the
Trust. For purposes of ensuring that each party has received due process, service
must be made on every person. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
339 U.S. 306, 320, 70 S. Ct. 652, 660, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950). “No personal
judgment shall be rendered against a defendant constructively summoned[.]” KRS
454.165. “Absent an appearance by the party, constructive service alone is not
sufficient to subject nonresidents to a personal judgment[.]” Soileau v. Bowman,
382 S.W.3d 888, 891 (Ky. App. 2012). Therefore, service on Mr. Hicks,
individually, does not constitute constructive service on the Trust.
Appellant’s final argument is that the condemnation of his property
rights without proper service violated his right to due process. Having determined
that Mr. Hicks, individually, was properly served, this argument is moot. Further,
we find no basis for imposing sanctions on Appellee.
CONCLUSION
Appellee properly utilized Kentucky’s long arm statute to attempt
service of process on Appellant both individually and as Trustee. Mr. Hicks,
individually, was properly served, as the Secretary of State posted the certified
-17-
mail to the correct address and otherwise complied with KRS 454.210(3)(c). The
Roberta Cherry Hicks Testamentary Trust was not properly served, evinced by the
returned mail from the United States Postal Service stating that the certified mail
was undeliverable. Further, service of process on Mr. Hicks, individually, did not
constitute constructive service on Mr. Hicks, Trustee.
Accordingly, we reverse the Christian Circuit Court’s interlocutory
order and judgment as to its finding that Mr. Hicks, Trustee, was properly served,
and remand the matter for further proceedings. The Christian Circuit Court does
not have jurisdiction over the Trust, nor its property interest within the
Commonwealth, until Appellee serves process on Mr. Hicks, Trustee, at the correct
address and in the manner prescribed by the long arm statute. Appellee, at its
discretion, may again attempt such service. Appellee may not proceed with
condemnation as against Appellant until jurisdiction is established. The
interlocutory order and judgment are in all other respects affirmed, as is the
January 26, 2021, order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition and
motion to strike the interlocutory order and judgment.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Robert G. Hicks, pro se Duncan Cavanah
Leesburg, Florida Hopkinsville, Kentucky
-18-