Next, we consider whether the trial court erred in determining that the statutory requirements for notorious service of process were not fulfilled. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of service bears the burden of establishing that the service was insufficient.. A sherrif's return of service "can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 (3) ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
1. A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of service bears the burden of showing improper service. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). "The sheriff's return of service constitutes prima facie proof of the facts recited therein. . . . The return can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing, but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."
Murray v. Sloan Paper Co., 212 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1) ( 442 SE2d 795) (1994) (citations omitted); see Poteate v. Rally Mfg., 260 Ga. App. 34, 35 (1) ( 579 SE2d 44) (2003). See Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996); Murray, supra. See USCR 6.3; Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855-856 (3) ( 668 SE2d 476) (2008).
Murray v. Sloan Paper Co., 212 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1) ( 442 SE2d 795) (1994) (citations omitted); see Poteate v. Rally Mfg., 260 Ga. App. 34, 35 (1) ( 579 SE2d 44) (2003). See Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996); Murray, supra.State Farm c. Ins. Co. v. Manders, 292 Ga. App. 793, 794 (1) ( 665 SE2d 886) (2008); Ballenger v. Floyd, 282 Ga. App. 574, 575 ( 639 SE2d 554) (2006).
In the instant case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in resolving the factual dispute in favor of Scarbrough Co. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). (Citation omitted.)
[Cit.]" Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). "Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court's finding of insufficient service of process must be affirmed. . . . Those findings will not be disturbed on appellate review when supported by any evidence."
[Cit.]" Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). Therefore, the motion Rally filed was more properly denominated a motion to dismiss.
"Motions to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process are matters in abatement, and do not form a proper basis for motions for summary judgment or convert to motions for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are considered. [Cit.]"Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786( 472 S.E.2d 554)(1996). The trial court properly considered affidavits regarding the composition and organization of Wildwood Urban Forest Group.
When a defendant in a lawsuit challenges the sufficiency of service, that defendant bears the burden of showing improper service. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). "The return can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing, but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."
" (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). While a return of service imports verity and itself is prima facie evidence concerning the facts recited therein, it is not conclusive and may be traversed and set aside by proof that such facts are untrue. Id; Webb v. Tatum, 202 Ga. App. 89, 91 ( 413 S.E.2d 263) (1991).