Background
Plaintiff Willie Morgan filed a fraud complaint against defendant Alicia Morgan on December 9, 2024, alleging that defendant stole a cashier’s check for $39,350 in May 2021 while the parties were married and plaintiff was planning to separate. Plaintiff claimed defendant deposited the check in their joint account and withdrew funds without authorization, leaving only $18,338 in the account.
A summons was issued December 10, 2024, set to expire March 11, 2025. On December 19, 2024, plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that process was served via certified mail. However, the proof of service stated that plaintiff “Willie Morgan”—not defendant Alicia Morgan—received the summons. The certified mail was sent to the address of an attorney who represented defendant in an unrelated matter.
The trial court dismissed the action for lack of service under Michigan Court Rule 2.102(E), finding that defendant had not been properly served before the summons expired and that plaintiff failed to satisfy the conditions required to set aside the dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court held that proper service of process is mandatory and cannot be waived through technical arguments. Under MCR 2.105(A), service must be made either by personal delivery to the defendant or by registered or certified mail to the defendant, with a signed return receipt.
Here, plaintiff’s service failed on multiple grounds. First, process was served on plaintiff himself, not defendant—a fundamental defect. Second, although plaintiff sent the certified mail to an attorney’s address, the attorney was not representing defendant in this dispute and did not accept service on defendant’s behalf. Third, plaintiff failed to show that defendant actually received notice of the lawsuit before the March 11, 2025 expiration date, violating MCR 2.105(K)(3). Finally, defendant never submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that this constituted a mere technical deficiency. Because defendant was never properly served and plaintiff did not meet the conditions under MCR 2.102(F) to set aside the dismissal, the trial court properly dismissed the action. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to refile if still within the applicable statute of limitations.
Key Takeaways
- Service of process requirements are strictly enforced; serving the wrong party (the plaintiff instead of defendant) is fatal to jurisdiction.
- Mailing process to an attorney’s address does not constitute valid service unless the attorney is representing the defendant in that specific case and accepts service on the defendant’s behalf.
- Summons expiration dates are rigid; failure to serve before expiration results in automatic dismissal unless conditions for revival are met.
- To set aside a dismissal for lack of service, plaintiff must show: (1) service was actually made timely or defendant submitted to jurisdiction; (2) proof of service was filed or failure excused for good cause; and (3) the motion was filed within 28 days of notice of dismissal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that procedural compliance with service of process rules is non-negotiable in Michigan civil litigation. Courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant without proper service, regardless of whether the defendant had actual notice or the merits favor dismissal. Attorneys must take care to serve the actual defendant—not the plaintiff or opposing counsel—and must retain proof of service before summons expiration.
The decision also illustrates that trial courts have limited discretion to excuse service defects after the summons expires. Plaintiff’s failure to track the expiration date and ensure proper service before that deadline resulted in dismissal, even though the underlying fraud claim may have merit. While the dismissal was without prejudice, plaintiff must now re-file and properly serve within applicable statute-of-limitations windows, risking loss of evidence, witness availability, and credibility.