Is Verbal Authorization to Accept Service by a Roommate a Valid Method of Service?

Last month, a defendant appealed a default judgment saying she was never served.

In TN Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Johnson, a Deputy testified that the Defendant (Ms. Johnson) gave him verbal authorization to leave the documents at her residence with an individual who she identified as James Johnson. Deputy Thompson followed her directions. (Legally, as long as the recipient provides verbal authorization of service, this is a valid method of service). Ms. Johnson said she had no recollection of this authorization. The court ruled that Ms. Johnson should not be considered a reliable witness due to the emotional trauma she endured. Deputy Thompson's recollection of events was considered credible. 

The Appeals Court distinguished another case.

In Watson v. Garza, two separate individuals were served for their equal involvement in an accident. The suit was filed against both Garza and Harber but only Harber was served. Garza appealed because he never received notification of the suit and did not authorize Harber to accept the process on his behalf. No evidence was presented or found against this claim. 

According to the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(1), service is achieved “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally, or if he or she evades or attempts to evade service, by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, whose name shall appear on the proof of service, or by delivering copies to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the individual served.

Verbal authorization by the defendant to leave with a roommate is valid. Although it can well lead to a messy factual dispute.