Opinion
No. 61269-7-I.
September 21, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Snohomish County, No. 03-2-09066-1, Gerald L. Knight, J., entered January 18, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Appelwick, J., concurred in by Grosse and Leach, JJ.
The Lavender Moon Society created the Office of the Elder of Truth, a corporation sole "over/for" the Society, in accordance with chapter 24.12 RCW, and appointed Floyd Timothy Ryan as the Overseer. As the corporation sole, Ryan filed a consent to serve as registered agent with the Secretary of State. By personally serving Ryan, McCrarey properly commenced this personal injury action against the Society. The trial court therefore did not err in denying the Society's motion to vacate a default judgment for insufficient service of process. Accordingly,
We affirm.
FACTS
The Lavender Moon Society (the Society) is an unincorporated religious society based in Snohomish County. In 1997, the Society created the Office of the Elder of Truth, organized as a corporation sole under chapter 24.12 RCW. According to Cynthia Sams, a member of the Society, the Office of the Elder of Truth "was a necessary addition to the Society for the purpose of perpetual control and stabilization of the Lavender Moon Society communication to the de facto powers in the other world."
On June 15, 2002, the general membership of the Society appointed Floyd Timothy Ryan as the "qualified Nazirite for the Office of Elder of Truth, a corporation sole, over/for the LAVENDER MOON SOCIETY." On the same date, Ryan executed a consent to serve as registered agent that was filed in the Washington Secretary of State's office. The document provided in part that:
Floyd Timothy Ryan, Nazirite ELDER OF TRUTH (Overseer), a corporation sole, over/for The LAVENDER MOON SOCIETY, consents to receive service of process; to forward all mail; and, but only as a courtesy, to notify the Office of the Secretary of State, in the event of abdication, or in any change in the Office address.
Ryan signed the document as "Nazirite Elder of Truth (Overseer), a corporation sole, over/for The LAVENDER MOON SOCIETY."
In 2003, Corey McCrarey filed this personal injury action against the Society, alleging that he was injured when he stepped into a hidden animal trap on the Society's property. McCrarey personally served the complaint on Ryan on July 23, 2003. Ryan filed pleadings in response on behalf of the Society, but the trial court eventually struck those filings because the Society was not represented by an attorney. The Supreme Court denied Ryan's challenge to the ruling. The trial court entered an order of default on May 27, 2004.
The complaint named additional defendants who were eventually dismissed from the action.
On April 4, 2006, the trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a default judgment against the Society for approximately $537,000. The court found that "[d]efendant Lavender Moon Society was properly served through its Nazirite Elder of Truth, Floyd Timothy Ryan, on July 23, 2003." The court denied the Society's motion to vacate on May 10, 2006. McCrarey assigned the judgment to Winston Reed Partners (Winston Reed) in April 2007.
On November 19, 2007, the Society once again moved to vacate, contending that the default judgment was void because of invalid service of process. The Society argued that neither Ryan nor the Office of the Elder of Truth was authorized to accept service on behalf of the Society, and that McCrarey therefore had to serve each member personally in order to validly commence an action against the Society. A commissioner denied the motion to vacate on December 27, 2007, and the superior court denied a motion for revision on January 18, 2008.
DISCUSSION
The Society's sole contention is that Floyd Timothy Ryan was not authorized to accept service of process on behalf of the Society and that the default judgment was therefore void and must be vacated. But under the circumstances here, personal service on the corporation sole was also valid service on the Society.
"Because courts have a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to vacate void judgments, a trial court's decision to grant or deny a CR 60(b)[5] motion to vacate a default judgment for want of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo." Dobbins v. Mendoza, 88 Wn. App. 862, 871, 947 P.2d 1229 (1997). A party may bring a motion to vacate under CR 60(b)(5) at any time after entry of judgment. Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wn. App. 588, 596, 794 P.2d 526 (1990). But a facially correct return of service is presumed valid and once judgment is entered, "the burden is on the person attacking the service to show by clear and convincing evidence that the service was irregular." Woodruff v. Spence, 88 Wn. App. 565, 571, 945 P.2d 745 (1997).
The evidence was undisputed that the Society created the Office of Elder of Truth as a corporation sole under chapter 24.12 RCW. In 2002, the Society membership expressly appointed Floyd Timothy Ryan as the "Overseer" of the Office of Elder of Truth, "over/for the LAVENDER MOON SOCIETY." Under the terms of RCW 24.12.010, Ryan therefore became the corporation sole and was "deemed to be a body corporate, with all the rights and powers prescribed in the case of corporations aggregate; and with all the privileges provided by law for religious corporations." Those powers include the power to contract to the same extent as a natural person and the power to sue and be sued. RCW 24.12.020.
As the duly appointed Overseer of the Office of Elder of Truth, Ryan was both the corporation sole "over/for" the Society and the only natural person on whom personal service could be effected. Ryan, in his capacity as corporation sole, explicitly recognized this status when he executed a consent to serve as registered agent and filed it with the Secretary of State. The Society submitted no admissible evidence indicating any limitation in Ryan's authority to act as the corporate sole. Service of process on Ryan as the corporation sole was therefore valid service on the Society. See RCW 24.12.030; Lee v. Barnes, 58 Wn.2d 265, 267-68, 362 P.2d 237 (1961) (service sufficient where defendant appointed person to accept service).
We need not address, for purposes of this appeal, whether or to what extent the Society could have designated alternative or additional persons to accept process.
The Society attempts to construct a legal distinction between the Society and the corporate sole for purposes of service of process, asserting that McCrarey had to personally serve each member of the Society in order to validly commence his lawsuit. The Society has not cited any relevant authority supporting this claim, which is inconsistent with the Society's own expressed purpose in creating the corporation sole. Because the Society failed to make any showing that service of process was invalid, the trial court did not err in denying the Society's motion to vacate.
Affirmed.