Melody Secco (nka Haynes) v. Gordon Secco ( 2017 )

FILED
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
MELODY SECCO (nka HAYNES), )
) No. 34050-3-111
Respondent, ) (consolidated with
) No. 34698-6-111)
V. )
)
GORDON SECCO, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. - In successive and consolidated appeals, Gordon Secco
challenges the superior court's denial of his motions to vacate orders entered in this
proceeding to dissolve his marriage to Melody Haynes (formerly Melody Secco). His
first appeal assigns error to the denial of his motion under CR 60(b )( 5) to vacate an order
of default he contends was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The second assigns
error to the court's denial of a subsequent motion under CR 60(b )(4) and (9) to vacate the
No. 34050-3-III (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-III)
Secco v. Secco
order on the basis of fraud or his inability to defend as the result of an unavoidable
misfortune.
The first appeal is dispositive. Mr. Secco overcomes the presumption that the
court had jurisdiction to enter the decree and final orders. Ms. Haynes is unable to
demonstrate an honest and reasonable effort to personally serve Mr. Secco before seeking
approval for service by mail. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Melody Secco petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage to Gordon Secco on
February 4, 2014. Two months later, on April 2, she moved the court for an order
allowing her to serve him by mail. Using a superior court form, her lawyer included the
required averments that Mr. Secco "cannot be found in this state" and that Ms. Haynes
had not been able to locate or serve him because he "has concealed himself/herself to
avoid service of summons." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 13-14. As facts supporting these
averments, counsel stated, "Service has been attempted 7 times by 2 different authorities
and have been unsuccessful," and, as efforts made to locate Mr. Secco, stated "5 attempts
by Spokane County Sheriffs Department. 2 attempts by __ ." CP at 14.
The motion was also supported by a sheriffs return of service stating that "[a]fter
diligent search and inquiry" the signatory deputy sheriff had been unable to serve Gordon
Secco at 8010 E. Augusta Avenue in Spokane Valley (the couples' home address),
2
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
indicating "five attempts made." CP at 17. A further declaration from Mark Cavadini,
who described himself as a friend of Ms. Haynes, declared:
Try to serve paper on the following date
Feb 18, 2014 at time of3:00 pm
Feb 19, 2014 at time of 1:30 pm
Feb 20, 2014 at time of 2:00 pm
At Every attempt I could hear noise inside of the house, But no answer!
Address 8010 E. Augusta Ave. Spokane, WA
CP at 15.
Undisclosed in the declarations was the fact that Ms. Haynes continued to reside at
the couple's home at least part time during the early February to early April time frame
when service of process was being attempted. According to Mr. Secco, during that time,
"I shared the same home with [Ms. Haynes]. Not only did we share the same home, but
we slept in the same bed." CP at 87. Ms. Haynes claims that for the most part she was
staying with her daughter or in a rental home owned by her ex-husband during that time
frame, but she admits to staying at her and Mr. Secco's home once or twice a week. The
"once or twice a week" estimate was corroborated by Ms. Haynes's daughter, who
testified that her mother stayed at the couple's home at her divorce lawyer's insistence,
evidently in the belief it would advance her legal position in the property division.
CP at 160.
An ex parte order allowing service by mail was entered by a court commissioner
on April 7. According to a declaration filed by Ms. Haynes's lawyer, he served Mr.
3
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
Secco by mail the next day. Ms. Haynes claims to have stayed away from the couple's
home during the time the substitute service was being effected, so there could be no
suggestion that she diverted papers mailed to Mr. Secco at their home address. Mr. Secco
nonetheless claims he never received them.
On July 9, 2014, Ms. Haynes moved for and was granted an order of default.
Six weeks later, on the morning of August 22, Mr. Secco and Ms. Haynes were
both at the couple's home before going to work when Mr. Secco slammed a door into Ms.
Haynes' s foot, breaking a bone. She claims he engaged in an extended assault that began
with pushing her down the stairs and concluded with his slamming her foot in the door
and then choking her. Mr. Secco claims her foot was injured accidentally, when Ms.
Haynes, and then he, pushed the door into the other during an argument. Ms. Haynes
initially went to work but was taken to the hospital by a coworker, and hospital personnel
reported the domestic violence assault to police. By 9: 17 a.m. that morning, a deputy
sheriff located Mr. Secco at his place of work and arrested him.
Mr. Secco was charged with second degree assault and unlawful imprisonment.
While Mr. Secco was in custody awaiting trial, Ms. Haynes noted presentment of a final
divorce decree for October 27. Notwithstanding the default order, her lawyer arranged
for service of the materials to be presented on Mr. Secco at the correctional facility where
he was detained. Mr. Secco claims this is when he first learned of the divorce action.
According to Mr. Secco, after being served at the correctional facility, he attempted to
4
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
contact two attorneys but having no access to funds, he was unable to pay a retainer. He
also claims to have tried to make bail, but bail bond companies considered him a flight
risk since he is a Canadian citizen.
At the presentment on October 27, the trial court entered findings of fact and
conclusions of law and signed the final decree of dissolution. Ms. Haynes requested and
was awarded the entire interest in the couple's home, which Mr. Secco contends was their
most significant asset. The final orders were mailed to Mr. Secco on November 10.
Mr. Secco was acquitted of the domestic violence charges and released from
incarceration on January 21, 2015.
In August 2015, seven months after he was acquitted and released, Mr. Secco filed
a motion to show cause why the order of default should not be vacated, arguing that the
trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over him and the default and later orders
were void under CR 60(b)(5). A court commissioner denied the motion, commenting in
her oral decision on Mr. Secco's delay in seeking relief and his failure to take action in
response to the materials he admitted receiving in October 2014. The written order
prepared by counsel and entered by the court said nothing about delay, however, stating
instead that "[s]ervice was properly effectuated and [Mr. Secco] failed to present a
compelling reason as to why this matter should be vacated." CP at 166. A motion for
revision was filed and denied, with the superior court stating only, "I'm going to decline
5
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
to revise the commissioner." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Dec. 3, 2015) at 23. Mr.
Secco filed his first appeal.
Five-and-a-half months later, with the first appeal pending, Mr. Secco sought a
second order to show cause why the default decree of dissolution should not be vacated,
this time relying on CR 60(b)(4) (providing relief for "[f]raud ... , misrepresentation, or
other misconduct of an adverse party") and CR 60(b )(9) (providing relief for
"[u]navoidable casualty or misfortune preventing the party from ... defending"). CP at
218. The trial court denied the motion, questioning Mr. Secco's right to bring serial CR
60 motions but also finding a lack of evidence of all nine elements of common law fraud.
Mr. Secco filed his second appeal. We consolidated it with the first.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Secco's first appeal, assigning error to his motion to the denial of his motion
to vacate the trial court's orders and judgment as void, is dispositive. There is no need to
address the second.
Service of process by means other than personal service, i.e., constructive and
substitute service, "is in derogation of the common law and cannot be used when
personal service is possible." Rodriguez v. James-Jackson, 127 Wn. App. 139, 143, 111
P.3d 271 (2005). "When the defendant cannot be found within the state," however, and
an affidavit is filed asserting that fact and other prerequisites, the court may authorize
service by publication. RCW 4.28.100. By court rule, if the circumstances justify
II 6
J
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
service by publication and the serving party files an affidavit stating facts from which the
court determines that service by mail is just as likely to give actual notice as service by
publication, the court may order service by mail. CR 4( d)( 4 ).
Strict compliance with the statute authorizing service by publication is required for
either type of substitute service. Compliance in this case required two things, the first
being that Mr. Secco could not be found within the state in fact, which is established by
demonstrating Ms. Haynes's honest and reasonable effort to locate him for service before
seeking service by mail. Dobbins v. Mendoza, 88 Wn. App. 862, 871, 947 P.2d 1229(1987). Compliance also required a sufficient affidavit from Ms. Haynes or on her
behalf, averring that (1) after a diligent search, Mr. Secco could not be found in
Washington; (2) he was a resident of Washington; and (3) he either left the state or
concealed himself within it, with the intent to defraud creditors or avoid service of
process. Pascua v. Heil, 126 Wn. App. 520, 526, 108 P.3d 1253 (2005); RCW
4.28.100(2). To ensure that substitute service is being used only as a last resort, the
affidavit must provide the specific facts supporting the required assertions, not
conclusory statements, and the authorizing judge must closely scrutinize the facts
provided rather than merely serving as a rubber stamp. Pascua, 126 Wn. App. at 527-28.
When allegedly defective substitute service is followed by entry of an order of
default and default judgment, the defendant may move to set aside the judgment as void
for lack of personal jurisdiction. CR 60(b)(5); Vukich v. Anderson, 97 Wn. App. 684,
7
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
686, 691, 985 P .2d 952 (1999). When there is a recital in a default judgment that proper
service of process has occurred, a presumption of jurisdiction arises, but it can be
overcome. Brenner v. Port of Bellingham, 53 Wn. App. 182, 186, 765 P.2d 1333 (1989)
(citing Burns v. Stolze, 111 Wash. 392, 395-96, 191 P. 642 (1920)). Once overcome, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence that a reasonable search was made. Id.
at 187. If service was not proper, dismissal is required even where a defendant has actual
notice of the lawsuit. In re Marriage of Logg, 74 Wn. App. 781,784,875 P.2d 647( 1994 ). There is no time limit to bring a motion to vacate a void judgment. Servatron v.
Intelligent Wireless Prods., Inc., 186 Wn. App. 666,679,346 P.3d 831 (2015).
Because courts have a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to vacate void judgments,
a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to vacate a default judgment for want of
jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Ahten v. Barnes, 158 Wn. App. 343,350,242 P.3d 35(2010). The issue before the court in a postjudgment CR 60(b) motion is not the
sufficiency of the original affidavits but "what in fact did the plaintiff do before seeking
[substitute] service." Brennan v. Hurt, 59 Wn. App. 315, 319, 796 P.2d 786 (1990).
What in fact happened can be supported by supplemental affidavits. Id. This is unlike
the situation where the defendant specially appears and makes a prejudgment challenge to
allegedly improper service of process; in that case, the original affidavits alone are
reviewed for sufficiency. E.g., Parkash v. Perry, 40 Wn. App. 849, 851-53, 700 P . 2d
1201 (1985).
8
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
Our dissenting colleague finds this difference in procedure between prejudgment
and postjudgment challenges anomalous, but it makes sense given the stakes at issue. If a
defendant specially appears but defends on the basis of insufficient service, he or she is
aware of the litigation and able to defend. The inquiry therefore ends with a review of
whether the plaintiffs submission in support of substitute service was facially defective,
establishing that the trial court erred in authorizing it. The stakes for the defendant do not
justify looking beyond the submission to determine whether the plaintiff in fact fully
discharged the duty to attempt personal service.
By contrast, when a default judgment has been entered that will deprive the
defendant of the opportunity to be heard on the merits unless set aside, the stake for the
defendant-due process-warrants looking at whether the circumstances justified
substitute service in fact.
Since the prerequisite to disfavored substitute service is that the "defendant cannot
be found within the state," RCW 4.28.100, the first inquiry for the court presented with a
postjudgment challenge to substitute service is whether the defendant really could not be
found. A central theme of cases that address when it is fair to say a defendant cannot be
found in Washington is "' that while not all conceivable means of personal service have
to be exhausted before service by publication is authorized, there must have been an
honest and "reasonable effort" to find the defendant.'" Brenner, 53 Wn. App. at 186(quoting Longview Fibre Co. v. Stokes, 52 Wn. App. 241,245, 758 P.2d 1006 (1988)).
9
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
This includes following up on any information possessed that might reasonably assist in
locating a defendant. Id.Mr. Secco has never contended that because Ms. Haynes resided part time in the
couple's home, she could have served him-he acknowledges that as a party she could
not effect proper service. But as he testified in support of his first motion to vacate the
default, "Since we lived in the same house and [Ms. Haynes] was also aware of my work
schedule, if she wanted to get me served all she had to do was have a friend, process
server or sheriffs office[r] come over at a time that she knew I was going to be home, or
have them serve me at a time she knew I was going to be at work." CP at 87. As he
argued in his briefing in the trial court, "All she had to do is bring a process server with
her on one of the nights that she was staying [at the home], or open the door for service of
process to be effectuated." CP at 196. These are valid points that were unanswered in
the trial court. That Mr. Secco was found at work and arrested at 9: 17 a.m. on August 22
is evidence of just one of the service alternatives open to Ms. Haynes and her lawyer.
An honest and reasonable effort includes not only following up on available
information, it also means following up on available ways of personally contacting a
defendant. If the objective was truly to accomplish personal service, not simply to create
a paper trail, a reasonable party would have pursued one of the simple and obvious
alternatives for personally contacting Mr. Secco. Ms. Haynes did not offer any reason for
10
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
her failure to attempt these other means of service, never providing testimony that they
would have exposed her to danger as speculated by the dissent. 1
Since Ms. Haynes did not meet her burden of demonstrating an honest and
reasonable effort to serve Mr. Secco, there is no need to reach the issue of his behavior.
1
The record belies speculation that Ms. Haynes believed in February and March
2014 that providing more assistance in serving her husband would have placed her in
danger. Mr. Secco filed a transcript of her January 20, 2015 testimony at his criminal
trial for the assault she alleged occurred five to six months after the attempts at service.
She testified:
Q. . .. [H]ow did the marriage fall apart?
A. It was gradual. He's a very negative person, kind of hard to be around.
He's an angry person. We kind of fell apart, didn't have really anything in
common. I didn't like being around him anymore, just wanted to be by myself.
Q. When did that start to happen that you wanted to be by yourself?
A. Over a year ago, maybe like the summer of ' 13.
Q. Okay. Now, you said there were anger issues and stuff like that. Was the
marriage ever violent before--
A. No.
Q. -this incident?
A. No.
Q. Okay. No issues there for you in terms of--
A. No.
Q. -violence? Okay. So just personality clashes?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that fair to say?
A. Yes.
CP at 258-59.
11
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
Whether Mr. Secco received the summons and complaint that was allegedly mailed also
need not be addressed; it is irrelevant. The trial court erred in concluding that it had
personal jurisdiction over Mr. Secco. The judgment should have been vacated as void.
Mr. Secco also assigns error to the application by the court commissioner of the
wrong legal standard to his CR 60(b)(5) motion, pointing to the commissioner's
discussion during her oral ruling of his failure to take earlier or different action. Since
the superior court denied the revision motion without findings, conclusions, or an oral
explanation, we deem the commissioner's findings and conclusions to have been adopted
by the trial court. See In re Marriage of Williams, 156 Wn. App. 22, 27-28, 232 P.3d 573(2010).
As noted earlier, there is no time limit to bring a motion to vacate a void judgment.
The commissioner's oral comments suggesting she was mistakenly concerned about
delay may have been no more than a thinking process. Her oral reasoning has no final or
binding effect since no finding of delay was incorporated into findings, conclusions and a
judgment or order. State v. Collins, 112 Wn.2d 303, 308, 771 P.2d 350 (1989). We
review the commissioner's order, not its oral ruling.
In conclusion, when a party seeks to provide notice of its lawsuit through
disfavored substitute service, and necessarily does so ex parte, it can be required, later, to
prove that it first honestly and reasonably tried to personally serve the defendant. The
focus will be on its good faith effort, not on whether it was unreasonable for the
12
No. 34050-3-111 (consolidated w/ No. 34698-6-111)
Secco v. Secco
defendant to refuse to respond to a knock at the front door. Parties seeking to use
substitute service should govern themselves accordingly.
The order of default, findings, conclusions and decree are reversed and the matter
is remanded for further proceedings. 2
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
I CONCUR:
Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ.
2
Ms. Haynes seeks an award of attorney fees and costs on the basis that Mr. Secco
has been intransigent. We find no intransigence and deny the request.
13
No. 34050-3-III (consolidated with No. 34698-6-III)
KORSMO, J. (dissenting) - The governing law most likely is as my learned
colleagues state that it is, but it should not be so. The current approach rewards those
who attempt to evade service and imposes extra obligations on those attempting to serve
the unwilling. Another unsettling aspect of this approach is to put this court in the
position of being a fact-finder and determining facts differently than the trial court did. If
this is what the law requires, it is time to do things differently.
The wife presented ample evidence that the husband evaded service. Two of their
neighbors were regular witnesses to the service efforts and the husband's subsequent visit
to the mailbox after the server had left the premises; they could hear the server's
pronouncements about his reasons for being there. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 145-148. It is
difficult to imagine that the husband did not. A person inside the house during one
service effort likewise provided a declaration that the husband was aware of the presence
of the process server due to a driveway alert device and had his guest (the declarant)
remain silent until the server was gone. The husband advised his guest that "Mel is
trying to serve me." The two men even dropped to their knees in order to not be
observed. CP at 149-150. The husband's declaration to the contrary rings quite hollow.
No. 34050-3-III
Secco v. Secco-dissent
Having considered this evidence, a court commissioner and, on revision, a
superior court judge, concluded that service by mail was proper. I agree and would
affirm on that basis. However, the majority says that because the matter proceeded to a
default judgment, the focus must change from the reasons that service by mail was proper
to whether or not additional efforts at personal service could have been attempted with
some possibility of success despite Mr. Sec co' s repeated efforts to avoid being served.
That is a disconnection in logic that my simple mind cannot follow. Moreover, this
change in focus effectively collaterally attacks the decision to permit service by mail by
requiring the plaintiff to come up with additional evidence to justify the service by mail.
That also makes no sense to me. Once the service by mail statute was satisfied, there is
no reason to undermine that statute's purpose by requiring additional justification for
using the statute by showing that other methods of attempting personal service would
have been unavailing.
The majority also appears to accept as true Mr. Secco's unproven allegation that
he never received the service paperwork mailed to him. He claims to have never received
it, but there is no evidence to support that claim (mail returned to sender, etc.). On this
record, it appears that a trier-of-fact would have severe reasons to doubt his assertions
and the superior court, understandably, never found that he did not receive the mailing.
2
No. 34050-3-III
Secco v. Secco-dissent
Why the majority finds this contention believable is beyond me. More importantly, I do
not understand fact-finding to be an appellate function. 1
Although probably not necessary to this dissent, I do want to take issue with the
contention made by the husband in argument and acknowledged by the majority, at page
9, that the wife could have facilitated service by arranging to be present and letting the
process server into the house. I imagine this suggestion will send chills down the back of
many victim advocates. Seldom is a strained domestic relationship more volatile than
when one party is served with dissolution or protection order paperwork. See, e.g.,
Washburn v. City ofFederal Way, 169 Wn. App. 588, 283 P.3d 567 (2012), aff'd, 178
Wn.2d 732, 310 P.3d 1275 (2013) (affirming liability against city for murder committed
when process server left victim alone with killer after serving protection order). Whether
or not Mr. Secco presented a genuine threat to his wife, the suggestion that such a risk
1
See State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 644-645, 870 P.2d 313 (1994) (rejecting line of
authority permitting appellate courts to undertake independent review of the evidence).
We do not weigh the evidence under any circumstance. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards,
Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 575, 343 P.2d 183 (1959); Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 153
Wn. App. 710, 717, 225 P.3d 266 (2009). We similarly do not substitute our judgment for
that of the trier of fact. Hesperian, 54 Wn.2d at 575.
3
No. 34050-3-111
Secco v. Secco-dissent
must be undertaken to serve someone who has been resisting service should be rejected
as a matter of public policy. 2
Viewing this record in a light most favorable to the judgment below, as I think we
should be doing, we have the following facts: (1) Mr. Secco eight times evaded service
by people he knew were trying to serve dissolution paperwork; (2) Mr. Secco received
the documents in the mail; (3) Mr. Secco did not appear in the action; (4) Mr. Secco was
even served with notice of the default hearing, but did not contact the court to explain his
inability to appear. Why these facts, alone or in combination, require vacation of the
judgment is a mystery to me. The fact that he can hypothesize other methods of personal
service that possibly might have been effective is no basis, in my mind, for forcing the
plaintiff to try to establish how Mr. Secco would have been unable to avoid service if
those other avenues had been attempted. She should not bear that burden.
2
The remaining suggestion that Mr. Secco should have been served at work, just as
he was arrested there many months after evading service at home, is not supported by any
evidence. The record is devoid of evidence that Mr. Secco would not have been able to
continue to avoid service at work. Would his employer have permitted a process server on
the premises? Would the business have been disrupted? Did he work at a location a
process server could reach without assistance of management? I would put the burden on
Mr. Secco, who contends this was a viable method of service, of establishing that fact. In
light of his ongoing efforts to avoid service to that point, there is no reason to think this
method would have been effective. I also suspect that most people other than Mr. Secco
would rather not be served in the presence of fellow employees.
4
No. 34050-3-111
Secco v. Secco-dissent
I would hold that when a plaintiff shows that a defendant is purposely evading
service, the burden falls on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff had more reasonable
means of serving him that also would have overcome his best efforts at evasion. If we do
anything less, we simply reward bad behavior and render our courts less accessible to
those who cannot afford to pay for around the clock efforts at serving a reluctant party.
Since our case law appears to create incentives for defendants to evade reasonable
efforts at service by increasing costs and requiring more effort from plaintiffs, I
respectfully dissent.
5