My experience with the hearsay evidence rules usually involves trying to get a business record like an invoice or spreadsheet into evidence at trial or on summary judgment. The business records hearsay exception is found at Illinois Evidence Rule 803(6) and mirrors the Federal counterpart. “Exception” in the context of hearsay evidence means a document is hearsay (an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted) and would normally be excluded but still gets in evidence because the document (or other piece of evidence) has an element of reliability that satisfies the court that the document is what it appears to be.
Occasionally though, I’ve found that a working knowledge of some of the more obscure (to me at least) hearsay exceptions can in some cases lead to a victory or at least resurrect a rapidly flagging case.
Davidian v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2015 WL 5827124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Oct.%202015/10-7-15/4D14-2431.op.pdf) a recent Florida appeals court decision, examines some hearsay exceptions as they apply to a process server’s sworn return of service and the persons served are challenging service.
Chase Bank filed a foreclosure suit against defendants/appellants (a husband and wife) and filed returns of service signed by Chase’s process server who certified that he served both appellants at the same time on the same date. The appellants moved to quash service of process on the grounds they were never served. The trial court denied the motion leading to this appeal.
The appeals court affirmed. It held the appellants failed to show by clear and convincing proof that the returns of service were deficient.
In Florida, the burden of proving proper service of process is on the suing party and the return of service is evidence of whether service was validly made. A return of service is presumed to be valid and the party contesting service must overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. A return of service is technically hearsay since it’s an out-of-court statement used to show its truth – that service of summons was in fact made on a party.
Two hearsay rule exceptions recognized not only by Florida courts but various state and Federal courts include the public records and the “regularly conducted business activity” exceptions. Fla. Stat. s. 90.801, 803(6), (8).
Here, the court found the service return admissible under both exceptions. The return was a public record – presumably because it was filed as part of the case record. The return also qualified as evidence of regularly conducted business activity since the process server stated in his affidavit that was his regular practice to prepare such an affidavit detailing the date, time and manner of service.
The appeals court also rejected appellants’ argument that the service returns were defeated by their counter-affidavits in which they denied receiving the summons and complaint. When faced with a service return and a defendant claiming he/she wasn’t served, the court makes a credibility determination after an evidentiary hearing. Factual determinations are typically not disturbed on appeal. The court found that the trial court was in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and upheld the motion to quash’s denial.
This case presents application of hearsay exceptions in an unorthodox factual setting. The court expanded the scope of the public records and regularly-conducted-business-activity exceptions to encompass a process server’s return of service. This case and others like it validate process servers’ sworn returns and make it easier for plaintiffs to clear service of process hurdles where a defendant claims to have never been served.