Tennessee process servers can sometimes play fast and loose with the rules of service. Here are a few things to look for to make sure you have good service (or ways to get out of a judgment!).

1. The return of service must have the server’s name and address.

2. The return must have the name of the person served and the manner of service.

Simply writing “served defendant” is not enough.

In Cornerstone Financial Credit Union vs. Joshua Mundy, the trial court dismissed the action of the lender trying to collect after a default judgment. In doing so, the court noted that the return of process did not have the process server’s address and did not describe the manner of service. Instead, it just said “J. Smith” had “served Joshua Mundy.” This wouldn’t do.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It listed the relevant Tennessee statutes as to proper service:

Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-901(b):

A civil warrant, attachment or any other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court and subpoenas or summons may be served by any person designated by the party or the party’s attorney, if represented by counsel, who is not a party to the action and is not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Service of other process and orders of the courts of this state shall be by sheriffs, constables or as provided by law. The process server must be identified by name and address on the return.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-902(a):

Any person serving the process from the general sessions court shall promptly and within the time during which the person is served must respond, make proof of service to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service.

Courts will stick to these requirements.

In Apexworks Restoration Vs. Derek Scott, a man and woman lived together. The process server met the man, served him and the man signed the warrant. The woman wasn’t there, but the process server entered a return of service stating that she was (perhaps thinking he served her through her roommate).

The man later contested service when the plaintiff pursued collection efforts. The man argued that the service return did not have the server’s address and was therefore deficient. However, the man had signed the warrant as having received it.

Does the technical defect render the service void? No. The court mentioned that “it is the service of process – rather than the return of service – that must be accomplished before a court obtains personal jurisdiction.” The man had adequate notice of pending judicial proceedings to satisfy the applicable law.

Watch those process servers! A judgment entered without jurisdiction is no judgment at all.