Miss. Supreme Court Rules Service of Process by Mail Not Effective When Returned as "Unclaimed/ Refused"
In a 6–3 decision the Mississippi Supreme Court held in Bloodgood v. Leatherwood that service of process by mail under Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(5) is not effective when the Postal Service returned the mailing marked “Unclaimed/Refused.” Justice Dickinson wrote the majority opinion.
Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(5) allows service of process by certified mail on persons outside the State. The rule states that: “[s]ervice by this method shall be deemed complete as of the date of delivery as evidenced by the return receipt or by the returned envelope marked ‘Refused’.” The opinion states that the U.S. Postal Service no longer specifies whether mail was unclaimed or refused and now uses the singular designation “Unclaimed/ Refused”. The majority reasoned that unclaimed and refused have different meanings and that the joint designation renders impossible a determination of whether a mailing was refused or unclaimed. The Court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a mailing returned as unclaimed failed to satisfy due process requirements.
The Court ruled that the trial court improperly found that the defendant was properly served, but remanded the case for a determination of whether the plaintiff could show good cause for the failure to serve process within 120 days.
Justice Graves dissented and was joined by Chief Justice Waller and Justice Kitchens. The dissent argued that service of process complied with Rule 4(c)(5) because:
- the mailing was returned with the marking “Unclaimed Refused”;
- the Postal Service attempted to deliver the mailing to the correct address;
- the Postal Service attempted delivery three times;
- the addressee received notice of each of the three attempted deliveries; and
- the defendant was aware of the Complaint, since she filed an Answer.
Both the majority and dissenting opinions are logical and have a point. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that the Postal Service “Unclaimed/ Refused” designation plays havoc with the language of Rule 4(c)(5). The Court should amend the rule to account for the new designation. The provision deeming service as effective when a mailing is returned as “refused” is meaningless if the Postal Service now stamps everything that is either unclaimed or refused as “Unclaimed/ Refused.”
