Can a constable's return of service be challenged in Utah courts? Classic Cabinets, Inc. v. All American Life Insurance Company Explained

In Classic Cabinets, Inc. v. All American Life Insurance Company, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the important question of whether a constable’s return of service carries the same legal weight as a sheriff’s return when challenging the validity of service of process.

Background and Facts

Classic Cabinets filed suit against All American Life Insurance Company, which had designated CT Corporation System as its registered agent for service of process in Utah. A Salt Lake County constable served the summons and complaint on CT Corp., personally delivering the documents to employee Michelle Rehrman and filing an affidavit of service. However, All American claimed it never received notice of the lawsuit through its registered agent and only learned of the resulting default judgment over a year later when Classic called seeking payment.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether All American could set aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b) based on allegedly deficient service of process, and (2) whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to Classic without identifying a legal basis.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals held that a constable’s return of service is entitled to the same presumption of correctness as a sheriff’s return. The court rejected All American’s argument that constables should be held to a different standard due to their fee-based compensation, noting that both constables and sheriffs face the same criminal penalties for falsifying service returns. To overcome this presumption, a defendant must present clear and convincing evidence that service was improper. All American’s evidence—affidavits from corporate employees stating they had no record of receiving the documents—was insufficient to meet this burden, particularly without an affidavit from Michelle Rehrman herself.

However, the court reversed the attorney fees award under plain error analysis, finding that neither Classic nor the trial court identified any statutory or contractual basis for the fees.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that constables’ service returns receive equal deference with sheriffs’ returns in Utah courts. When challenging service of process, practitioners must present compelling evidence directly contradicting the return, including testimony from the specific individuals involved in the service. The case also reinforces that attorney fees require explicit statutory or contractual authorization in Utah.