Zeigler, supra at 357 (1).Carmody v. Hill, 248 Ga. App. 437, 439 ( 546 SE2d 545) (2001) (punctuation and footnote omitted); see Zeigler, supra at 358; Pryor v. Douglas Shopper The Coffee County News, 236 Ga. App. 854, 856 (1) ( 514 SE2d 59) (1999); Elmore v. Elmore, 177 Ga. App. 682-683 (2) ( 340 SE2d 651) (1986); Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763 ( 298 SE2d 510) (1982) (noting that the burden was on the plaintiff, not the sheriff, to show diligence in attempting to ensure that proper service had been made as quickly as possible). Because the evidence did not demand a finding of due diligence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Harrell's motion.

Wade v. Whalen, 232 Ga. App. 765 (1) ( 504 SE2d 456) (1998). See also Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 SE2d 510) (1982) ("The burden is on the plaintiff, not the sheriff, to show diligence in attempting to insure that proper service has been made as quickly as possible.") (emphasis in original). With regard to service on Morrison, Wells has failed to cite any action on his part to show that he has acted diligently in attempting to serve process.

Zeigler cannot excuse her lack of diligence by attempting to place responsibility on others. See Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 S.E.2d 510) (1982) ("burden is on the plaintiff, not the sheriff, to show diligence in attempting to ensure that proper service has been made as quickly as possible"); Nee v. Dixon, 199 Ga. App. 729, 730 ( 405 S.E.2d 766) (1991). Because the evidence does not demand a finding of due diligence, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Hambrick's motion to dismiss.

Although O.C.G.A. § 53-5-8 provides that the court will mail the required notice, it is always the burden of the applicant to ensure that service is timely made. See generally Strickland v. Home Depot, 234 Ga. App. 545, 546 ( 507 S.E.2d 783) (1998) (burden on plaintiff not sheriff and state court); Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 (1) ( 298 S.E.2d 510) (1982) (burden on plaintiff not sheriff). Here, the court indicated in its order of February 3, 1997 that it required more information.

Bowman v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 167 Ga. App. 673, 676 ( 307 S.E.2d 134). Further, as plaintiffs have the responsibility to investigate and learn where the defendant may be located and served ( Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 S.E.2d 510); Cheek v. Norton, 106 Ga. App. 280, 285 ( 126 S.E.2d 816)), it is no excuse that Patterson could not be served at the address that was indicated on his driver's license some 18 months earlier. More importantly, the receipt of Patterson's answer asserting defective service "should have put [the Johnsons] on notice and inspired them, through counsel, to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service."

In any event, it was Carroll's responsibility to investigate and determine where a defendant may be served. Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 S.E.2d 510). Moreover, even if Froeber continued to maintain a residence in North Carolina in addition to his residence in Georgia, that would not authorize use of the Nonresident Motorists Act.

" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 S.E.2d 510) (1982); see also Watters v. Classon, 193 Ga. App. 493 (1) ( 388 S.E.2d 397) (1989). Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

" Plaintiff must carry the burden to show diligent service. Miller v. Hands, 188 Ga. App. 256, 257 ( 372 S.E.2d 657); Daughtry v. Cohen, 187 Ga. App. 253, 254 ( 370 S.E.2d 18); Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763 ( 298 S.E.2d 510). Further, "the trial court's exercise of . . . discretion in these matters will not be overturned on appeal, unless it has been actually abused and cannot be supported as a matter of law."

" (Emphasis in the original.) Accord Jones v. Brown, 174 Ga. App. 632 ( 331 S.E.2d 24) (1985); Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763 ( 298 S.E.2d 510) (1982). In the instant case plaintiff/appellee Hands alleges that she had relied on the deputy marshal's return of service and had had no notice that service had not been perfected until the filing of the motion to dismiss on June 15, 1987.

"The burden is on the plaintiff ... to show diligence in attempting to insure that proper service has been made as quickly as possible. [Cits.]" Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 764 ( 298 S.E.2d 510) (1982). Appellant's assertion that she exercised due diligence is not supported by the record.