Perfect Process Blog

Archive for the ‘BLOG’ Category

A Final Thought on the WOG

Monday, August 9th, 2010

It is an unfortunate fact that a vast number of attorneys throughout the state consider 663 to be the rule governing the service of the WOG. Our clear authority to serve it under 103 will continue to be challenged or ignored by many as long as 663 remains in its present form. To avoid conflict, many plaintiff’s attorneys will continue to have it served [albeit untimely] by constable.  In their mind [if it is not settled law] one should play it safe- it doesn’t make economic sense to do otherwise. At present, many of us are losing a great deal of business and don’t even know it- it’s happening in the background. For the uninformed doubters, let’s get it settled, published, and widely disseminated. Once again, who’s with me?

More on the Writ of Garnishment

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

On February 12, 2008, the Supreme Court issued an Order Appointing Ancillary Task  Force– ostensibly to clarify conflicting rules. The order makes specific reference to Rule 103, and includes a request that a report and recommendations be provided to the court no later than October 31, 2008. The report and recommendations have not been forthcoming. Frankly, I am confused as to why a “task force” was even necessary.

It is instructive to note that the Code Construction Act applies to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re. Walkup, 122 S.W.3d 215, 217. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.026 (b) states:

If the conflict between the general provision and the special provision or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”

The amended Rule 103 is the later enactment, and the manifest intention of it is to allow private process servers to serve a wide variety of process including writs. The code is precisely applicable to the matter before the task force, and it is my hope that it be considered in any recommendation.

I strongly urge all interested parties to contact the chair and other members of the task force, and encourage them to recommend to the court language clarifying 103 to mean what it says, or [better] that 663 includes persons authorized under 103. I consider the matter urgent, and until it is laid to rest we will continue to be challenged by garnishees or debtors, and passed over by the uninformed resulting in needless economic loss.

Old Red

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Taken this morning from the 7th floor of the George Allen, Sr. Courts Bldg.,  Dallas, Texas

Posted by Marc Jaco with WordPress for BlackBerry.

The Lone Star Writ of Garnishment

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

Even today, some Texas lawyers-particularly those representing garnishees-take the position that privates are not authorized to serve the writ of garnishment. Given the fact that my service of the writ has been challenged twice in the last two years, one could reasonably assume it happens regularly throughout the state. Most in this camp cite Rule 663 TRCP (October 1940) which states as follows:

The sheriff or constable receiving the writ of garnishment shall immediately proceed to execute the same by delivering a copy thereof to the garnishee, and shall make return thereof as of other citations.

For starters, it appears to me that Rule 663 does not expressly prohibit service by a private process server- none existed at that time. In my view Rule 103 TRCP amended and effective 2005, trumps 663. In support, the rule to wit:

Process-including citation and other notices, writs, orders, and other papers issued by the court-may be served anywhere by (1) any sheriff or constable or other person authorized by law, (2) any person authorized by law or by written order of the court who is not less than eighteen years of age, or (3) any person certified under order of the Supreme Court. Service by registered or certified mail and citation by publication must, if requested, be made by the clerk of the court in which the case is pending. But no person who is a party to or interested in the outcome of a suit may serve any process in that suit, and, unless otherwise authorized by a written court order, only a sheriff or constable may serve a citation in an action of forcible entry and detainer, a writ that requires the actual taking of possession of a person, property or thing, or process requiring that an enforcement action be physically enforced by the person delivering the process. The order authorizing a person to serve process may be made without written motion and no fee may be imposed for issuance of such order.

Obviously, the writ of garnishment is not one that requires the actual taking of possession of a person, property or thing, nor one requiring that an enforcement action be physically enforced by the person delivering the process. As stated even in [the dated] 663, it’s just another citation.

As for the outcome of my cases, in one instance the 116th District Court of Dallas County upheld the service denying the garnishee’s motion to dissolve (Dallas City Bank vs. Lori Gerard, et al) based on case law. In the other, the plaintiff’s attorney elected to have the writ re-served by constable rather than incur the additional expense to defend. In either case, my authority to serve the writ should never have been in question.

The Bottom Line: Rule 663 TRCP adopted in 1940 does not govern what a private server can serve- it is applicable only to sheriffs and constables. The only rules governing what a private can serve are Rules 103 TRCP adopted in 1987, and 536 TRCP adopted in 1990. Both were amended in 2005 to permit service of virtually all writs by any authorized person.

Best Airline in America

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

Sunset reflected on the engine of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 between San Antonio and Dallas.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Taps

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

An inspired arrangement by Thomas Knox, performed by US Marine Corp Band- simply outstanding.

16 – Taps with Orchestration (Bugle Call – With Orchestration)

Methods of Service: O'Connor's Texas Rules Contains Major Error

Monday, May 10th, 2010

For those who regularly reference O’Connor’s Civil Trials in issues regarding service of process, I offer the following caveat: In Chapter 2, H. Serving Defendant, page 132, the authors have mistakenly imported language from Rule 14.3 (c) of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. The stated methods of service in fact apply only to service of notice upon process servers in disciplinary actions pending before the Process Server Review Board, not to service upon a defendant in a civil action as represented. Approved methods of service can be found in Rule 106 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Additional service methods addressing specific circumstances can be found in the Texas Business Organizations Code, and the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

As process servers, most of us will occasionally find ourselves in possession of a citation or writ of which service may appear problematic. When you find yourself in this situation, it may be a good idea to do a bit of research. If in doing so you discover a rule or statute that addresses the particular circumstance, share your findings with your client. Throughout the years, it has been my experience that most attorneys appreciate that level of concern and initiative, and- more often than not- will further investigate your findings before proceeding with service.

Proper service being the single most critical element in the commencement of any lawsuit, it is advisable that process servers refer to and rely only on rules and statutes as authored by the governing body and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court.

Warren Buffet

Friday, May 7th, 2010

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.

James Bond

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

[They say] you are judged by the strength of your enemies.

American Blood Brother

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

The great Ted Nugent with Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=404&issue=010

PERFECT PROCESS ® is a registered service mark of its owner, Marc Jaco.
 
Copyright 2000-2011. All rights reserved.