In a case where the defendant’s secretary received the summons, there was no prior attempt to serve personally. Was there proper service of summons on the defendant?

In a case where the defendant’s secretary received the summons, there was no prior attempt to serve personally. Was there proper service of summons on the defendant?

• A. YES.
• B. NO.
• C. It is valid if the secretary is authorized to receive service.
• D. It is valid if the defendant appears.

Answer: (B)

Notice to a defendant must be given by serving him personally or by delivering the summons to an agent who is specifically authorized to receive process for him. A secretary is not automatically an authorized recipient. Without express authorization, handing the summons to the defendant’s secretary does not constitute valid service and does not confer jurisdiction. In this scenario, there was no prior attempt to serve personally and no evidence that the secretary was empowered to receive service on the defendant’s behalf. Therefore, the service is improper. It would be valid only if the secretary was expressly authorized to receive service for the defendant, or if the defendant later appears (which can cure defective service by entering a general appearance).

Notice to a defendant must be given by serving him personally or by delivering the summons to an agent who is specifically authorized to receive process for him. A secretary is not automatically an authorized recipient. Without express authorization, handing the summons to the defendant’s secretary does not constitute valid service and does not confer jurisdiction.

In this scenario, there was no prior attempt to serve personally and no evidence that the secretary was empowered to receive service on the defendant’s behalf. Therefore, the service is improper. It would be valid only if the secretary was expressly authorized to receive service for the defendant, or if the defendant later appears (which can cure defective service by entering a general appearance).