"[If] the statute of limitation has expired and the defendant has raised a service defense in court," the plaintiff has a duty to employ the "greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service." See Swain v. Thompson , 281 Ga. 30, 32 (2), 635 S.E.2d 779 (2006) ("Receipt of [the defendant's] answer asserting insufficiency of service put [the plaintiff] on notice and should have inspired [her] to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service."); Ballenger , 282 Ga. App. at 575, 639 S.E.2d 554 ("[The defendant] raised the defense of insufficient service in his answer and [the plaintiff] was on notice that service had not been perfected."); Pryor v. Douglas Shopper - the Coffee County. News , 236 Ga. App. 854, 856 (1), 514 S.E.2d 59 (1999) ("[R]eceipt of the defendants’ answer asserting insufficiency of service should have put [the plaintiff] on notice and inspired [her], through counsel, to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service.") (punctuation omitted). (Punctuation omitted.)

Receipt of Thompson's answer asserting insufficiency of service put Swain on notice and should have inspired him to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service. Pryor v. Douglas Shopper — The Coffee County News, 236 Ga. App. 854 (1) ( 514 SE2d 59) (1999). Certainly, Thompson's motion to dismiss, more specific than the answer in setting forth the deficiency of service and process, triggered the duty of greatest possible diligence.

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.

See McClendon Co. v. Hernando Phosphate Co., 100 Ga. 219 ( 28 SE 152) (1897); Plumlee v. Davis, 221 Ga. App. 848, 851 (1) ( 473 SE2d 510) (1996); Cherry v. Gilbert, 124 Ga. App. 847 ( 186 SE2d 319) (1971); Kirby v. Johnson County Savings Bank, 12 Ga. App. 157 ( 76 SE 996) (1913). See Pryor v. Douglas Shopper c., 236 Ga. App. 854, 857-858 (2) ( 514 SE2d 59) (1999). Here, the statute of limitation is not an issue, and there is no question that service was properly made.

Thus, because service of process was perfected after the statute of limitation passed, timely filing of the complaint tolls the statute only if Moore showed she acted reasonably and diligently in attempting to serve Wilkerson as quickly as possible, and that she was not at fault. Pryor v. Douglas Shopper c, 236 Ga. App. 854 ( 514 SE2d 59) (1999). Moore argues that she acted in a diligent manner in attempting to serve Wilkerson; however the record is not persuasive. Moore filed the complaint eight days before the expiration of the limitation period and service was not perfected until sixteen months after the statute ran. While the evidence shows that Moore hired a private investigator to find Wilkerson, the investigator only used computer software to attempt to locate Wilkerson. Despite having been unsuccessful in perfecting service on at least three previous occasions, the investigator never talked with Wilkerson's family, neighbors or employers. Wilkerson apparently lived in five different locations during the sixteen-month period, but all within the same small community, even in the same mobile home park.

Floyd's answer asserting insufficiency of service put Ballenger on notice and she was then required to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service. Pryor v. DouglasShopper — The Coffee County News, 236 Ga. App. 854, 857 ( 514 SE2d 59) (1999). Ballenger did not do so.

Id.Pryor v. Douglas Shopper — The Coffee County News, 236 Ga. App. 854, 858 (2) ( 514 S.E.2d 59) (1999). The trial court further did not err by dismissing Ramon from the case.

Id.Pryor v. Douglas Shopper — The Coffee County News, 236 Ga. App. 854, 858(2) ( 514 S.E.2d 59) (1999). The trial court further did not err by dismissing Ramon from the case.

Because service of process was perfected after the statute of limitation passed, timely filing of the complaint relates back to the date that a suit was properly filed within the statute only if Farahi showed he acted reasonably and diligently in attempting to serve Jordan as quickly as possible, and that he was not at fault. Pryor v. Douglas Shopper c., 236 Ga. App. 854 (___ S.E.2d ___) (1999). If Farahi could not make such a showing, however, he would be guilty of laches and service would not relate back to the filing of the complaint. Farahi admits by implication that the third return of service, which Jordan's son picked up at the sheriff's office, was invalid, but argues that she reasonably relied on the sheriff's return showing notorious service on her son.