Part of me decided to write about this ruling because it allowed me to start the article with, “I guess it’s true … size matters.” A Washington Appeals Court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling vacating a default judgment for an unpaid debt against a consumer, ruling that the differences in size between the plaintiff, who is six feet, six inches tall, and the description of the man provided by the process server who served the complaint, five feet, 10 inches, was one reason why the judgment should be vacated.
The background: The lawsuit was filed after the defendant allegedly defaulted on a vehicle loan and a deficiency balance remained following repossession and sale of the vehicle. A default judgment was entered after the plaintiff asserted that the defendant had been personally served and failed to respond.
- Several years later, when wage garnishment efforts began, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment, arguing he had never been properly served and had no knowledge of the lawsuit until collection efforts resumed.
- To support that claim, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating he did not receive the lawsuit and that the physical description recorded by the process server did not match his actual height and weight. He also provided identification showing he was significantly taller than the person described in the service affidavit. The defendant also claimed to be living “on and off” at the address where the documents were served.
- The plaintiff countered with documents suggesting the defendant resided at the service address at the time.
- The trial court credited the defendant’s testimony and found the discrepancy in physical descriptions meaningful.
The ruling: In affirming the lower court’s decision, the appeals court noted that courts have a nondiscretionary duty to vacate judgments entered without proper service because personal jurisdiction was never established.
- The court emphasized that while a signed declaration of service creates a presumption of valid service, that presumption can be overcome with clear and convincing evidence.
- As the opinion put it, “there’s no mistaking those two height differences,” a point the trial court relied on in concluding the wrong person had likely been served.
