{
  "id": 8437672,
  "name": "ANDREW JOHN SALIBY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Saliby v. Conners",
  "decision_date": "2005-07-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-1016",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "438",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 435"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "601 S.E.2d 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "298"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 N.C. App. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8411236
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "270"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/166/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "560 S.E.2d 589",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592",
          "parenthetical": "citing Guthrie, 293 N.C. at 71, 235 S.E.2d at 149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.C. App. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9129111
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "473",
          "parenthetical": "citing Guthrie, 293 N.C. at 71, 235 S.E.2d at 149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/149/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 S.E.2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "149"
        },
        {
          "page": "149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561424
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "71"
        },
        {
          "page": "71"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "467 S.E.2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        795943
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "545"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1907,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "393"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N.C. 637",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661604
      ],
      "year": 1907,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "638"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0637-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1911,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325"
        },
        {
          "page": "325"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N.C. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270598
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1911,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179"
        },
        {
          "page": "179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.E.2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "241",
          "parenthetical": "stating \"[s]ervice of process, and the return thereof, are serious matters; and the return of a sworn authorized officer should not 'be lightly set aside.' \""
        },
        {
          "page": "241"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616988
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "642",
          "parenthetical": "stating \"[s]ervice of process, and the return thereof, are serious matters; and the return of a sworn authorized officer should not 'be lightly set aside.' \""
        },
        {
          "page": "642"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0640-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5811,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20383775270295681
    },
    "sha256": "3cf45169dcb523bcc817f5fade7d4b1ba3bda36fff98e28e6d8af870dbc41f3d",
    "simhash": "1:8f4b4a23158a305f",
    "word_count": 926
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:31.744997+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANDREW JOHN SALIBY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nAndrew John Saliby (plaintiff) filed suit against Christopher Robert Conners (defendant) on 23 September 2003 to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Wake County Deputy Sheriff S.R. Williamson (Deputy Williamson) served the summons on defendant\u2019s father, Wayne G. Conners (Mr. Conners), at defendant\u2019s residence at 1028 Wintu Court, in Raleigh, North Carolina (the residence) on 30 September 2003. Mr. Conners accepted the summons and subsequently faxed it to defendant in Houston, Texas. Mr. Conners also faxed the summons to defendant\u2019s automobile insurance company.\nDefendant filed an answer, which included a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s action for insufficient process and insufficient service of process pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4) and (5) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(4) and (5) (2003). A hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was held on 21 April 2004. Deputy Williamson testified at the hearing that prior to serving the summons, he asked Mr. Conners if defendant lived at the residence. Mr. Conners replied in the affirmative. Mr. Conners testified that defendant had moved from the residence to Houston, Texas in early June 2002 to accept a new job, but Mr. Conners stated he was unsure whether he had relayed this information to Deputy Williamson. Defendant presented only the testimony of Mr. Conners in support of his motion to dismiss. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion, dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint without prejudice for insufficient process and insufficient service of process. Plaintiff appeals.\nPlaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss because the presumption of valid service cannot be overcome by the testimony of just one witness. We agree. Service may be made on a natural person \u201c[b]y delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to him or by leaving copies thereof at the defendant\u2019s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(l)(a) (2003). Our Supreme Court has consistently held that \u201c[w]hen the return shows legal service by an authorized officer, nothing else appearing, the law presumes service.\u201d Harrington v. Rice, 245 N.C. 640, 642, 97 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1957) (stating \u201c[s]ervice of process, and the return thereof, are serious matters; and the return of a sworn authorized officer should not \u2018be lightly set aside.\u2019 \u201d) (quoting Burlingham v. Canady, 156 N.C. 177, 179, 72 S.E. 324, 325 (1911)); see also Smothers v. Sprouse, 144 N.C. 637, 638, 57 S.E. 392, 393 (1907).\n\u201c[A]n officer\u2019s return of service may not be set aside unless the evidence consists of more than a single contradictory affidavit (the contradictory testimony of one witness) and is clear and unequivocal.\u201d Id. A defendant thus bears the burden of rebutting the presumption by evidence that consists of more than a single contradictory affidavit. See id.; see also Grimsley v. Nelson, 342 N.C. 542, 545, 467 S.E.2d 92, 94 (1996); Guthrie v. Ray, 293 N.C. 67, 71, 235 S.E.2d 146, 149 (1977); Burlingham, 156 N.C. at 179, 72 S.E. at 325.\nDefendant has not met his burden in the present case. Deputy Williamson\u2019s return of the summons indicates legal service under Rule 4(j)(l)(a), which results in a presumption of valid service of process. See Gibby v. Lindsey, 149 N.C. App. 470, 473, 560 S.E.2d 589, 592 (2002) (citing Guthrie, 293 N.C. at 71, 235 S.E.2d at 149). Defendant submitted only Mr. Conners\u2019s affidavit to rebut this presumption.\nDefendant argues that his motion and answer, when combined with Mr. Conners\u2019s affidavit, can serve as additional evidence that rebuts the presumption of proper service. However, our Court in affirming a trial court\u2019s denial of a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process where only an unverified answer was filed, emphasized the Harrington requirement that more than a single contradictory affidavit is required to show improper service. Brown v. King, 166 N.C. App. 267, 270, 601 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2004). In Brown, we held the defendant failed to meet the evidentiary burden necessary to show improper service. Id. In the case before us, defendant\u2019s argument that his unverified answer supplemented Mr. Conners\u2019s affidavit as evidence of insufficient process is without merit.\nWe need not examine the second requirement in Harrington that the evidence must be \u201cclear and unequivocal,\u201d see Harrington, 245 N.C. at 642, 97 S.E.2d at 241, since defendant\u2019s evidence was not \u201cmore than a single contradictory affidavit\u201d in support of his motion to dismiss. Because defendant failed to rebut the presumption of valid service, the trial court erred in granting his motion to dismiss.\nReversed.\nJudges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McGEE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patterson, Dilthey, Clay, Bryson, & Anderson, L.L.P., by Reid Russell, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Larcade & Heiskell, PLLC, by Christopher N. Heiskell, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANDREW JOHN SALIBY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee\nNo. COA04-1016\n(Filed 5 July 2005)\nProcess and Service\u2014 presumption of proper service \u2014 rebuttal \u2014 more than one affidavit\nA defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of valid service by more than a single contradictory affidavit. In this case, defendant submitted only testimony from his father that he had moved to Texas for a job; defendant\u2019s unverified answer did not serve as additional evidence rebutting the presumption of proper service, and the trial court erred by granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 13 May 2004 by Judge Stafford G. Bullock in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 March 2005.\nPatterson, Dilthey, Clay, Bryson, & Anderson, L.L.P., by Reid Russell, for plaintiff-appellant.\nLarcade & Heiskell, PLLC, by Christopher N. Heiskell, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 465,
  "last_page_order": 468
}