CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.
Development brought claims seeking to renew a judgment against Randall Smith
that exceeded $1.2 million. Rather than serving the complaint on Smith
personally, Shamrock served the complaint via publication in a Minnesota
newspaper. Because Smith had never lived in, or visited, Minnesota, a motion to
dismiss was brought for insufficient service of process and lack of personal
jurisdiction. Because the statute of limitations had run for renewing the
judgment, if service of process was insufficient (i.e., no personal
jurisdiction existed), then Shamrock would not be able to renew its judgment
even if the case was re-filed and the complaint properly served. The trial
court denied the motion to dismiss. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court. At the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, Mr. Smith was vindicated.
The Supreme Court concluded the trial court had not made the necessary factual
findings as to whether Smith was actually a resident individual domiciliary who
left the state with the intent to defraud creditors or avoid service of process
and, therefore, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the
case to the trial court. Prior to the trial court taking further action, the
Shamrock Development dropped its claims against Smith as it understood no facts
existed that could support jurisdiction against him in Minnesota.
Randall Smith was represented by Bowman and Brooke partners Timothy Mattson and C.J. Schoenwetter.