When can Utah courts authorize service by publication? C504750P v. Baker Explained

Utah appellate practitioners frequently encounter situations where traditional service methods fail. The Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in C504750P v. Baker provides crucial guidance on when courts may authorize service by publication as an alternative method.

Background and Facts

Baker purchased a 40% interest in property at a tax sale but refused to cooperate when the original owner sold the entire property to C504750P LLC. After filing suit for specific performance, C5 made extensive efforts to serve Baker personally. Over eighteen days, a process server attempted service five times at varying days and hours, observing people in the house but receiving no response. The server spoke with neighbors confirming Baker’s residence, left a business card, and witnessed a man in the home’s office who closed the blinds after making eye contact. C5 also verified the address through electronic searches and attempted certified mail service, which was returned unclaimed.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether C5 exercised reasonable diligence sufficient to justify service by publication under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(5). Baker challenged the default judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing she was denied due process because the judgment was void for improper service.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that C5’s efforts constituted reasonable diligence. Unlike inadequate efforts in Jackson Construction Co. v. Marrs, where only one unverified mailing was attempted, C5’s approach was comprehensive. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must “take advantage of readily available sources of relevant information” and noted that C5 corroborated Baker’s address through multiple sources: her husband’s prior correspondence, neighbor confirmations, and electronic searches.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear benchmarks for reasonable diligence in service attempts. Practitioners should document multiple service attempts at different times, verify addresses through various sources, attempt both personal and certified mail service, and gather corroborating evidence from neighbors or other sources. The court rejected Baker’s argument that regular mail should have been attempted when certified mail was returned unclaimed, emphasizing that defendants cannot avoid service through deliberate evasion.