Administrative Law Case Study
You asked me to determine whether our client, Paul Grantham, can challenge the sufficiency of substituted service on his secretary at Mr. Grantham’s accounting office, when the landlord sued him individually. I have researched Oklahoma’s service of process statute, and I believe that Mr. Grantham’s challenge will be successful.
The Oklahoma service of process statute provides that service is valid when copies of the summons and petition are served by personal delivery. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2004(C)(1)(c) (West 2012). In lieu of personal delivery, the statute allows for substituted service by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house or usual place of abode with someone who resides there and is fifteen …show more content…
Before answering the second question, the Court found it necessary to resolve what was required to authorize a person “by appointment” as an agent for the purpose of receiving service of process, and what was required to identify a person who has become an agent “authorized by law.” Id. The court defined an agent authorized by appointment as one who has received specific authorization to receive service of process by his principal by means such as a contract. Id. at ¶14, 814 P.2d at 494. The Court noted that general agency is insufficient to establish that a person has been authorized by appointment. The Court went on to define an agent authorized by law as one who has been authorized by legislative enactment to receive process. After finding that there was no evidence to support the clinic’s contention that the physician’s receptionist was appointed to receive service and there was no statute which would authorize the receptionist to receive service of process, the Court stated that the requirements of the applicable statute had not been met. Id. at ¶19 4, 814 P.2d at 495. As a result, the Court found it unnecessary to answer the third question and subsequently ruled that substitute service upon the receptionist at the clinic where the appellant was employed was ineffective as service upon the physician. Id. at ¶21, 814 P.2d at
The Oklahoma service of process statute provides that service is valid when copies of the summons and petition are served by personal delivery. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2004(C)(1)(c) (West 2012). In lieu of personal delivery, the statute allows for substituted service by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house or usual place of abode with someone who resides there and is fifteen …show more content…
Before answering the second question, the Court found it necessary to resolve what was required to authorize a person “by appointment” as an agent for the purpose of receiving service of process, and what was required to identify a person who has become an agent “authorized by law.” Id. The court defined an agent authorized by appointment as one who has received specific authorization to receive service of process by his principal by means such as a contract. Id. at ¶14, 814 P.2d at 494. The Court noted that general agency is insufficient to establish that a person has been authorized by appointment. The Court went on to define an agent authorized by law as one who has been authorized by legislative enactment to receive process. After finding that there was no evidence to support the clinic’s contention that the physician’s receptionist was appointed to receive service and there was no statute which would authorize the receptionist to receive service of process, the Court stated that the requirements of the applicable statute had not been met. Id. at ¶19 4, 814 P.2d at 495. As a result, the Court found it unnecessary to answer the third question and subsequently ruled that substitute service upon the receptionist at the clinic where the appellant was employed was ineffective as service upon the physician. Id. at ¶21, 814 P.2d at