Narnia Investments, Ltd., filed a suit in a Texas state court against several defendants, including Harvestons Securities, Inc., a securities dealer. (Securities are documents evidencing the ownership of a corporation, in the form of stock, or debts owed by it, in the form of bonds.) Harvestons is registered with the state of Texas and thus may be served with a summons and a copy of a complaint by serving the Texas Securities Commissioner. In this case, the return of service indicated that process was served on the commissioner “by delivering to JoAnn Kocerek defendant, in person, a true copy of this [summons] together with the accompanying copy(ies) of the [complaint].” Harvestons did not file an answer, and Narnia obtained a default judgment against the defendant for $365,000, plus attorneys’ fees and interest. Five months after this judgment, Harvestons filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. Harvestons appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, claiming that it had not been served in strict compliance with the rules governing service of process.
(a) Harvestons asserted that Narnia’s service was invalid in part because “the return of service states that process was delivered to ‘JoAnn Kocerek’” and did not show that she “had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner.”Should such a detail, if it is required, be strictly construed and applied? Should it apply in this case? Explain.
(b) Whose responsibility is it to see that service of process is accomplished properly? Was it accomplished properly in this case? Why or why not?