Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XIV Chapter 90
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 3C (2026)

Service of process; notice of service; continuance

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 3C. Service of process under section three A or three B shall be made by leaving a copy of the process with a fee to be determined annually by the commissioner of administration under the provision of section three B of chapter seven in the hands of the registrar, or in his office, and by giving the defendant notice in either the manner provided in paragraph (1) or in that provided in paragraph (2) hereof, and such service shall be sufficient service upon a defendant who has under either of said sections appointed the registrar or his successor his true and lawful attorney therefor.

(1) If the defendant is known by the plaintiff to be the holder of a motor vehicle registration or operator's license issued by another state or country, notice of such service upon the registrar as attorney for the defendant and a copy of the process shall forthwith be sent by registered mail, with return receipt requested, by the plaintiff to the defendant at his address of record in the office from which such registration or license was issued. The plaintiff's affidavit of compliance herewith, and the defendant's return receipt, if received by the plaintiff, shall be filed in the case on or before the return day of the process or within such further time as the court may allow. If the defendant has no motor vehicle registration or license known to the plaintiff, such notice and copy shall be sent in the same manner to the last address of the defendant known to the plaintiff, and affidavit of compliance herewith, and the defendant's return receipt or other proof of actual notice, shall be filed in the case within the time above provided.

(2) Notice of such service upon the registrar and a copy of the process shall be served upon the defendant, if found within the commonwealth, by a sheriff or deputy sheriff of any county of this commonwealth, or, if found without the commonwealth, by any duly constituted public officer qualified to serve like process in the state or jurisdiction where the defendant is found, and the officer's return showing such service to have been made shall be filed in the case on or before the return day of the process or within such further time as the court may allow.

(3) The court in which the action is pending may order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant reasonable opportunity to defend the action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: Gifford v. Spehr, 266 N.E.2d 657 (Mass. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gifford v. Spehr, 266 N.E.2d 657 (Mass. 1971). · cites it 2× “” See G. L. c. 90, § 3C (as appearing in St. 1937, c, 387).”
Nickerson v. Fales, 172 N.E.2d 832 (Mass. 1961). · cites it 2× “[G. L. c. 90, § 3C].” On May 14, 1957, the defendants, appearing specially, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the service was invalid.”
Raposo v. Evans, 882 N.E.2d 356 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “The return indicated that process was served on the registry and forwarded by mail to the last address for Evans appearing in the registrar’s records, in accordance with G. L. c. 90, § 3C. The motion was served on February 22, 2006, and docketed on March 6, 2006.”
Hardy v. Utica Mut. Ins., 341 N.E.2d 651 (Mass. 1976). “*699 The defendant argues that our cases construing as-sertedly parallel provisions of G. L. c. 90, § 3C, concerning service on a nonresident motorist, require us to conclude that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Bills.”
Hardy v. Green, 277 F. Supp. 958 (D. Mass. 1967). · cites it 2× “Defendants have appeared specially through counsel to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction over them on the ground that the service of process failed to meet the requirements of M.G.L. c. 90 § 3C. 2 In their motion to dismiss or, in lieu thereof, to quash the return of service,…”
Touzin v. Smith, 381 N.E.2d 1313 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). “Such a requirement was read into G. L. c. 90, § 3C(1), by White v. Hultgren, 357 Mass.”
Crete v. Audet, 234 N.E.2d 733 (Mass. 1968). “¡[Audet], a nonresident,” and that there has been no compliance with G. L. c. 90, § 3C; and (b) an answer in abatement asserting that Audet was a nonresident, who had no property in Massachusetts which was attached in this action, that he had not been personally served in…”
Hanson v. Venditelli, 712 N.E.2d 1212 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “The question on this appeal is whether the judge erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure of the plaintiff to comply with G. L. c. 90, § 3C, which is set forth in the *414 margin.”
Saint Louis v. Balloons Over Boston, 1998 Mass. App. Div. 54 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998). “No affidavit of compliance was filed as required by G.L.c. 90, §§3C or 3D. The underlying judgment is void because the plaintiff never perfected service on the defendant nor did the defendant have actual notice of the suit before default and judgment.”
White v. Hultgren, 255 N.E.2d 791 (Mass. 1970). “In addition to service of process on the registrar, G. L. c. 90, § 3C (1), as appearing in St.”
LUZ HARVEY & Another v. ELIAS ASSED (& a Consol. Case). (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 6× “" G. L. c. 90, § 3C. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs properly served the Registrar.”
Huggins v. Santos, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 101 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× “Although what led Huggins to that belief is unknown, it would explain why he did not seek service on Santos through the registry of motor vehicles. See G.L.c. 90, §3C(2).”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 3C(1) — 2 cases
Touzin v. Smith, 381 N.E.2d 1313 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). “Such a requirement was read into G. L. c. 90, § 3C(1), by White v. Hultgren, 357 Mass.”
Huggins v. Santos, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 101 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009). “Although what led Huggins to that belief is unknown, it would explain why he did not seek service on Santos through the registry of motor vehicles. See G.L.c. 90, §3C(2).”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 3C(2) — 1 case
Huggins v. Santos, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 101 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009). “Although what led Huggins to that belief is unknown, it would explain why he did not seek service on Santos through the registry of motor vehicles. See G.L.c. 90, §3C(2).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.