Does a letter or email to a Plaintiff attorney constitute service of process?

[sylvesterfl]

You forgot that if someone attempts to serve you and if you refuse it, then that is considered service in most states.

You need to accept service and start negotiating.

I haven't refused it. They haven't been able to contact me.

 

[tranquility]

While Seniorjudge answered your question (correctly), I answered what you were asking.

Here is your future. Your corporation will get a default judgment against you. They will perfect the judgment and try to collect. You will write a check or try to pay yourself or sell some property and you will find a lien against it or will find the checks don't work any more because of the levy in on the bank account. YOU will now go to the court and claim you were not served. YOU will now try to serve the other party with your motion to set aside the default judgment. This is where the problem comes in. As a matter of law, the other party will provide proof they served you. I know you think they didn't, but they will provide proof. The burden will now fall on you to either prove they lied (It's nearly impossible to prove a negative.) and win on a matter of law, or claim on a matter of equity (fairness) you did not have notice of the suit.

This is where your problem lies. If the other side can provide the letter, it in no way proves, as a matter of law, you were served. But, as a matter of fairness or equity, they can show you did know of the suit.

See how that works? The question you asked was wrong. Understanding the process is what is important. If you think a lawsuit is a cooperative process, why would any defendant who is represented by an attorney who knows EVER "accept" service? Have all the corporate attorneys gone mad? Has Yale law school failed completly? Or, do you have misconceptions about what is going to and must happen?

Info edit:
Also, please see 49.051.

 

[Zigner]

While Seniorjudge answered your question (correctly),

Yet another heretic!

 

[sylvesterfl]

While Seniorjudge answered your question (correctly), I answered what you were asking.

Here is your future. Your corporation will get a default judgment against you. They will perfect the judgment and try to collect. You will write a check or try to pay yourself or sell some property and you will find a lien against it or will find the checks don't work any more because of the levy in on the bank account. YOU will now go to the court and claim you were not served. YOU will now try to serve the other party with your motion to set aside the default judgment. This is where the problem comes in. As a matter of law, the other party will provide proof they served you. I know you think they didn't, but they will provide proof. The burden will now fall on you to either prove they lied (It's nearly impossible to prove a negative.) and win on a matter of law, or claim on a matter of equity (fairness) you did not have notice of the suit.

This is where your problem lies. If the other side can provide the letter, it in no way proves, as a matter of law, you were served. But, as a matter of fairness or equity, they can show you did know of the suit.

See how that works? The question you asked was wrong. Understanding the process is what is important. If you think a lawsuit is a cooperative process, why would any defendant who is represented by an attorney who knows EVER "accept" service? Have all the corporate attorneys gone mad? Has Yale law school failed completly? Or, do you have misconceptions about what is going to and must happen?

Info edit:
Also, please see 49.051.

Anyway, I don't disagree with what you are saying in the context of what you think you know exactly about my situation in your own mind. How could I?

Back to reality. My "company" is broke. Literally. I have no assets in the company name. I do have a few corporate accounts I use to make money "thru" the business with. If any judgement is ever levied against the company from these people I intend to dissolve it along with those accounts. Nothing to sell, and only very small checks to write.

Of course, like many other people I still have some assets and a very small savings which are entirely in my own name. Many of these were even earned outside of my company. So, naturally at this point the ONLY thing I am concerned about it some judgement against my company somehow allowing the dirty attorneys to someday go after me personally for anything they can get their money grubbing hands on. I've been told by several attorneys that this is probably not possible given the fact that (at least in this case) I have signed no personal guarantees and these jerks are in fact suing my company alone. I've also been told that this would not be "proper" as this case is simply about my company. As someone who always leans towards caution I'm still trying to find some place to protect my savings, etc. against judgement. I find it amusing to the point of absurdity that I've been paying over $200 per year to the state and going through all other hoops to maintain a corporation only to have to worry about not having any legal protection by having it - which is the entire point of having it to begin with.

Anyway, thanks for the point about the letter. I think I'm going to hold off. What's the point anyway? I don't know exactly what's in these papers they've been trying to push. I have an idea ... but we'll see what happens. Outside of me sending them a letter, I'm pretty darn sure they they will have to someday serve me as they've been attempting to get this case going. I mean it's been over 6 months since they've filed and they are apparently still trying as they messed up both my holidays with their dirty process servers. I guess the economy is tough when you'll go harass people for 75 bucks on christmas eve.

 

[Rexlan]

Corps. were never intended to be used to shed liability.

 

[sylvesterfl]

Corps. were never intended to be used to shed liability.

LOL! Get a LIFE! You and Zig need to realize this forum is for Q&A and not to vent your misdirected anger and dysfunctional mental conditions. You don't know me anymore than you know anyone else asking questions.
EDIT:

You don't know the case either. You and Zig THINK you know everything about everyone, but you don't. If you'd READ half of what I wrote you'd clearly see I have no intentions of using my corp to "shed liability". SEPARATE is the operative word here.
EDIT EDIT:

and another thing! It's is primarily you TWO (you and ZIG) that I've been "rejecting" "advice" from. The reasons for which are more than OBVIOUS.