WHo Can Serve My Spouse

[worldtrotter]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California


Hi,

I've filed for divorce (amicable), however we don't really have anyone to serve the papers to my wife besides my adult daughter. Is that legal?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California


Hi,

I've filed for divorce (amicable), however we don't really have anyone to serve the papers to my wife besides my adult daughter. Is that legal?

What do you mean "we don't have anyone to serve papers"? Who is "we"?

 

[FlyingRon]

As long as she is an adult and not a party to the case, she can serve the papers.
You can also hire a process server or in some cases even get the local sheriff to serve.

 

[Just Blue]

As long as she is an adult and not a party to the case, she can serve the papers.
You can also hire a process server or in some cases even get the local sheriff to serve.

I disagree. To involve their mutual child in the divorce process is not a good idea. OP should hire a process server.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree. To involve their mutual child in the divorce process is not a good idea. OP should hire a process server.

Legally, the adult child is allowed to serve the papers. Furthermore, by how the statement was made, I'm not sure that we're talking about a "mutual child".


ETA: Of course, I agree that the adult child (whether mutual or not) should not be put in this position.

 

[NIV]

Go to the CA courts website. There is a process to serve by mail. You send a couple of complaints and a release of service--which is returned. It saves money and, if the divorce is truly amicable, neither should object.

 

[FlyingRon]

Go to the CA courts website. There is a process to serve by mail. You send a couple of complaints and a release of service--which is returned. It saves money and, if the divorce is truly amicable, neither should object.

He still can't send anything by mail. Service by mail also needs to be accomplsihed by a non-party. Some courts for some actions (like small claims) will mail the service for you.

 

[NIV]

He still can't send anything by mail. Service by mail also needs to be accomplsihed by a non-party. Some courts for some actions (like small claims) will mail the service for you.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=415.30.&lawCode=CCP

The courts focus on receipt of the acknowledgement, not on who sent it.

In a non-published decision of the 2nd appellate district, Filed 3/7/13 Cadavid v. Kennedy CA2/3 B238982 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC466330):

The method for effecting service by mail is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30. It provides that a summons may be served by mail by depositing it in first class mail, among other things, two copies of the notice and acknowledgment in the form described in subdivision (b) of that section. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (a).) Service of summons is only complete when written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is signed and returned to the sender. (Id., at subd.Â*(c) & (e).)1 Thus, the efficacy of service by mail is expressly based on the execution and return of an acknowledgment of service. (Thierfeldt v. Marin Hosp. Dist. (1973) 35Â*Cal.App.3d 186, 199; Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subds. (c) & (e).) “If the party addressed fails to do so, there is no effective service.” (Thierfeldt v. Marin Hosp. Dist., at p. 199, italics added.) If acknowledgment of service is not returned within 20Â*days, the Code of Civil Procedure provides plaintiffs with recourse. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd.Â*(d).)2

 

[Zigner]

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=415.30.&lawCode=CCP

The courts focus on receipt of the acknowledgement, not on who sent it.

In a non-published decision of the 2nd appellate district, Filed 3/7/13 Cadavid v. Kennedy CA2/3 B238982 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC466330):

A party to the matter cannot serve documents on the other party, no matter the method of service.

ETA: You'll want to refer to the California Rules of Civil Procedure, § 413.10.

ETA (correction): I'm sorry, the actual section you'll want to refer to is 414.10, which says "A summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action." (emphasis added)

 

[FlyingRon]

Your case doesn't refute the fact that the CCP requires the service to be mailed by a non-party. The issue that Grabowski wasn't allowed to mail it wasn't raised, so the fact that it wasn't addressed is irrelevant. Further, in the decision they tend to omit irrelevant details. When they talk aboiut one party SERVING another, they don't need to insert the details of who actually performed the act of service is.

 

[NIV]

Your case doesn't refute the fact that the CCP requires the service to be mailed by a non-party. The issue that Grabowski wasn't allowed to mail it wasn't raised, so the fact that it wasn't addressed is irrelevant. Further, in the decision they tend to omit irrelevant details. When they talk aboiut one party SERVING another, they don't need to insert the details of who actually performed the act of service is.

FlyingRon is not talking to ghosts. I posted a case where the plaintiff served the other side and the original court and the appellate court (twice) still found personal jurisdiction. His post is an attempt to distinguish it. But, quickly after posting I thought of how many legal principles that would have to be discussed to explain why AND an even longer set of possibilities about what might happen here and decided it is better to not debate the issue.