AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 1995, the State Human Services Department filed a complaint to establish the paternity and child support obligations of Anthony Ysco for a nearly four-year-old child, alleging Ysco was the natural father. In 1997, a default judgment was entered against Ysco due to his failure to respond to the complaint. Ysco later contested this judgment in 2014, claiming he was never properly served as the summons were delivered to his uncle, who had mental health issues and did not live with him, at his grandmother's house, which Ysco occasionally used as a mailing address while residing in Arizona (paras 4-5, 7).

Procedural History

• District Court, 1997: Entered a default judgment against Ysco, establishing his paternity and child support obligations.
• District Court, 2014: Declared the 1997 default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction and precluded the Department from refiling its complaint due to the child's age.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants (State Human Services Department and Amy J. Aragon): Argued that Ysco was lawfully and properly served in 1995, and the 1997 default judgment should not be declared void. Contended that the original complaint should be reactivated instead of being barred from refiling due to the child's age (para 9).
• Respondent-Appellee (Anthony P. Ysco): Claimed he was never notified of the complaint or summons as they were served on his uncle, who had mental health issues and never lived with Ysco. Asserted that he resided in Arizona at the time of service and used his grandmother's address only as a mailing address (paras 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the 1997 default judgment was void due to lack of personal jurisdiction over Ysco.
• Whether the Department is precluded from refiling its complaint to establish paternity and child support obligations due to the child's age.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order declaring the 1997 default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings, indicating that the original case remains pending and should be disposed of on its merits (para 20).

Reasons

• Per Sutin, J. (Wechsler and Kennedy, JJ., concurring):
  The Court found that the 1997 default judgment was void as Ysco was not properly served with the summons and complaint in 1995, in accordance with the service of process rules at the time. The Court concluded that service was inadequate because it was made to a non-resident of Ysco's usual place of abode and was not mailed to him as required (paras 12-17).
  The Court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the Department could not re-file its complaint against Ysco due to the child's age. Instead, it held that declaring the default judgment void left the original complaint pending for adjudication on its merits, thus not requiring a re-filing of the complaint (paras 18-19).