Stamps v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. App. 3d 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Stamps v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. App. 3d 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye (casd, 2020-11-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Crt, 14 Cal. App. 3d 108, 110 (1971) (holding that “[t]he trial court 4 deemed erroneously that the service described was adequate to comply with the law” where > 1 service of process “was sent by airmail, return receipt requested, but the return receipt was 6 || returned bearing the notice “unclaimed,” and as a result, “there was no “signed receipt or T || other evidence’ of delivery”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bolkiah v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
(See Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ] [return receipt marked “unclaimed” will not suffice as a valid proof of service]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Actions, § 986, p. 1154.) This section provides if service is made by mail on an out-of-state defendant “proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence.” (Code Civ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg
Cal. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
(Honda Motor Co. v. Superior *809 Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; Schering Corp. v. Superior Court. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 737, 741 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 337 ]; Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ]; In re Abrams (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 685, 693 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) Without personal jurisdiction over Stacy, the judgment in the wrongful death action is ineffective as to her.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zirbes v. Stratton
Cal. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
(Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 799 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 836 ].) “In order to obtain in personam jurisdiction through any form of constructive service there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures. [Fn. omitted.]” (Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ].) To be constitutionally sound the form of substituted service must be “reasonably calculated to give an interested party actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard ... [in order that] the traditional notions of fair play and substantial jus…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
(Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 109 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ].) Real parties have not complied with any applicable manner of service prescribed by any California statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Abrams
Cal. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
“No person is compelled to act in a judicial proceeding in which jurisdiction over her person has not been obtained.” (Id., at p. 668, citing Lapham v. Campbell (1882) 61 Cal. 296, 300 .) Mere knowledge of the action is not a substitute for service, nor does it raise any estoppel to contest the validity of service (Slaybaugh v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 216, 223 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 628 ]; Ursino v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 611, 617 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 404 ]; Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ]; Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evartt v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
(Stern v. Judson (1912) 163 Cal. 726 [ 127 P. 38 ]; Kahn v. Matthai (1897) 115 Cal. 689 [ 47 P. 698 ]; Braly v. Seaman (1866) 30 Cal. *800 610 (disapproved on other grounds in Hahn v. Kelly (1868) 34 Cal. 391, 404 ); Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ]; Sanford v. Smith (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 991, 998-999 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 256 ]; Arnold v. Newhall County Water Dist. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 794, 800 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].) Since the enactment of the Act, the language at issue has been construed in accordance with the earlier interpretation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
(Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at pp. 817-818; cf. Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ].) A proper return could do no more.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
(Cf. Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 151 ].) The adequacy of service “so far as due process is concerned is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.
JAMES E. STAMPS, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YUBA COUNTY, Respondent; BARBARA JEAN WELLINGTON, Real Party in Interest
Civ. 12803.
California Court of Appeal.
Jan 4, 1971.
14 Cal. App. 3d 108
Counsel, McDonald & Donahue and Michael Lyions for Petitioner., No appearance for Respondent., Dahl, Stark, Hefner, Marois & James and Paul James for Real Party in Interest.
Pierce.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

PIERCE, P. J.

Real party in interest, Barbara Jean Wellington (hereinafter “ex-wife”), brought suit in Yuba County against petitioner, James E. Stamps (“ex-husband”) to establish an Arkansas decree of divorce and to modify it in ways not relevant to this discussion. The action was brought before July 1, 1970. Service of process was attempted but (as is conceded)[*110] was inadequate to give in personam jurisdiction because the process server in Arizona served the copy of the complaint and summons not upon- ex-husband but upon ex-husband’s wife. Ex-husband appeared specially in the Yuba County Superior Court to quash service of process. The trial court in a memorandum opinion conceded that no service of process sufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction over ex-husband had been made and asserted that the motion was well taken. Nevertheless, the court deemed that someday in some way a valid service of summons might be attained and therefore denied, the motion.

July 1, 1970, passed and ex-wife then attempted service by mail to obtain personal service pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40 of the new Jurisdiction and Service of Process Act (Stats. 1969, ch. 1610). That section provides in part that summons may be made on a person outside this state “by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by any form of airmail. . . .” Proof of service by that method “shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed receipt or other evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 417.20, subd. (a).) Ex-husband at all times herein relevant has been a resident of Arizona.

In the case now before this court the process was sent by airmail, return receipt requested, but the return receipt was returned bearing the notice “unclaimed.” Hence there was no “signed receipt or other evidence” of delivery.

The trial court deemed erroneously that the service described was adequate to comply with the law. In order to obtain in personam jurisdiction through any form of constructive service there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures. [1] That was not accomplished.

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any service of process by ex-wife upon ex-husband made pursuant to Code of Civil Pn>[*111] cedure section 415.20, with proof of service as provided in said Jurisdiction and Service of Process Act (Stats. 1969, ch. 1610). Nothing in the record before us shows such service.

Let á writ issue compelling respondent court to vacate its order denying ex-husband’s motion to quash service and to vacate the order declaring service as described sufficient to afford in personam jurisdiction against ex-husband. The trial court is directed to enter its order granting said motion to quash, all in accordance with the views expressed herein. The previous order of this court staying further proceedings in the superior court is vacated.

Regan, J., and Bray, J., * concurred.

1

As examples, see Chaplin v. Superior Court (1927) 81 Cal.App. 367, 375-376 [253 P. 954] (actual notice insufficient); Pinon v. Pollard (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 129, 133 [158 P.2d 254] (constructive service upon nonresident); Weisfeld v. Superior Court (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 148, 151-152 [242 P.2d 29] (nonresident motorist); see also Community Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 164, 178 [56 Cal.Rptr. 201], hg. den. (publication); Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. Keener (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 246, 250-251 [55 Cal.Rptr. 444] (foreign corporation) ; Ben-Yehoshua v. Superior Court (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 719, 722 [29 Cal.Rptr. 775] (nonresident motorist); Kaplan v. Superior Court (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 492, 494-495 [12 Cal.Rptr. 781] (foreign executor); and see Symposium, California Jurisdiction, 21 Hastings L.J. 1105, 1257-1280, 1281-1290.

*

Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.