Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A06-1647

Court of Appeals

Meyer, J. Took no part, Magnuson, C.J., and Dietzen, J.

Shamrock Development, Inc., Respondent, vs. Randall N. Smith, Appellant, Denison E. Smith, Defendant, Dakota Turkey Farms, Limited Partnership, Defendant. Filed: August 7, 2008 Office of Appellate Courts

SYLLABUS Service by publication under Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(a) is effective to confer jurisdiction if the essential jurisdictional facts set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney actually exist--it is not effective if the affiant merely believes that the jurisdictional facts exist. Reversed and remanded. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

1

OPINION MEYER, Justice. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether respondent Shamrock Development, Inc.s attempted service of process by publication on appellant Randall Smith satisfied the requirements of Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(a) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court concluded that the service by

publication was sufficient, and the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse and remand to the district court. In April 1996 the Hennepin County District Court entered a civil judgment in favor of Farm Credit Leasing Services Corporation (Farm Credit) against Dakota Turkey Farms limited partnership (the partnership) and certain individual partners, including Randall N. Smith. In connection with this judgment, Farm Credit filed with the district court an affidavit of identification of judgment debtor that identified Randall Smiths residential address in Washington, D.C., and his business address in Arlington, Virginia. A similar affidavit identified an address in Medina, Minnesota, as both the residential and business address of one of the other partners; the same Medina street address was also registered with the Secretary of State as the partnerships address.1 Farm Credits

judgment was subsequently assigned to Shamrock Development, Inc. (Shamrock). The

1

The partnerships registration with the Secretary of State listed the same street address as did the affidavit of identification, but it listed the city as Wayzata rather than Medina. Despite this difference, it appears that the two addresses are, in fact, the same. We refer to the address in this opinion as "the Medina address."

2

record indicates that Shamrock requested and was mailed a copy of the entire district court file in October 2002. In 2006 Shamrock decided to renew its judgment by commencing a new civil action against the judgment debtors.2 On March 19 Shamrock attempted to serve the partnership with process at the Medina address but discovered that the address is a private home and that the current owner was not associated with the partnership. Shamrock subsequently effected service of process on the partnership by serving the Secretary of State as provided by Minn. Stat.

Download A06-1647, Shamrock Development, Inc., Respondent, vs. Randall N. Smith, Appellan

Minnesota Law