I BELIEVE KANSAS COURTS CAN PROGRESS INTO WHAT NEW YORK COURTS HAVE BECOME, PROTECTORS HAVE HOMEOWNER RIGHTS FIRST AND FOREMOST, THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHT LEGISLATION IN PLACE TO ENABLE THEIR COURTS TO MAKE IMMEDIATE, POWERFUL DECISIONS

[NYSC] Judge F. Dana Winslow Grants Vacatur of Default Judgment Due To “NAIL & MAIL” (Process Service) WELLS FARGO v. DALRYMPLE

Posted on11 February 2011. Tags: AINSLEY DALRYMPLE, F. DANA WINSLOW. NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, foreclosure, Judge F. Dana Winslow, Nail & Mail, new york, ny supreme court, order to show cause, process service, traverse hearing, wells fargo

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

against

AINSLEY W. DALRYMPLE, ALEX SMITH;
TISHURA SMITH

excerpt:

There was no testimony whether the process server ever tried to check the mortgage document which must have included detailed personal information of DALRYMPLE. There was no evidence showing sincere communication between the plaintiff and the process server to find out the actual dwellng place of DALRYMPLE who testified that he made numerous notifications to the plaintiff about his residence since his default in the mortgage payment. The process server did not testify about any effort to find out DALRYMPLE’ s place of employment and to serve him there. The inquiry by the process server to Alex Smith at 96 Meadowbrook Road or to an unidentified neighbor of 184 Beverly Road is no more than a check of D ALR YMPLE’ s residence. The record in the DMV or Post Offce should be the beginning of the search for the whereabout of defendant but not the final answer to the inquiry of the address for the purpose of the nail and mail service. The Court determines that the due diligence requirement to serve under CPLR ~308 (1) or (2) is not satisfied.

The nail and mail service can be made by affixing the summons and complaint to the door of either “the actual place of business, dwellng place or usual place of abode” of the defendant. See CPLR ~308( 4). The process server testified that he affxed the summons and complaint at the premise of 184 Beverly Road and mailed the same to the last known address of DALRYMPLE. However, DALRYMPLE testified that he did not live there but lived at 96 Meadowbrook Road at the time of service. Plaintiff did not offer any evidence or testimony showing that DALRYMPLE actually lived at 184 Beverly Road at the time of service. The alleged statement by an unidentified neighbor of 184 Beverly Road is hearsay and lacks credibility without any information for identification. The reports from DMV or Post Office can be useful as the last known residence but not as the address of actual place of business, dwellng place or usual place of abode. The Cour determines that the purported nail and mail service on DALRYMPLE did not satisfy the statutory requirement under CPLR ~308( 4).

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that DALRYMPLE’ S motion to vacate the default judgment is granted.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Dalrymple w

Related articles

• Daughter Dies And Wells Fargo Bank Goes After Parents To Repay Student Loan (lockergnome.com)
• "Wells Fargo and US Bank cannot prove they have valid mortgages | Supreme Court" and related posts (thebankwatch.com)
• UPDATE 2-Wells Fargo CFO retires, successor named (reuters.com)
• CORRECTED - UPDATE 1-Wells Fargo CFO retires, successor named (reuters.com)