Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Service Of Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies motion to reopen default after process server testifies defendant accepted papers
Summary
In a post‑judgment challenge to a default judgment, a private process server testified under oath and showed photos that the judge found sufficient evidence of personal service on Andre Andrews; the court denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the default.
A Clayton County judge denied a request to reopen a default judgment after hearing live testimony from the plaintiff’s process server and reviewing photographic evidence that the judge said rebutted the defendant’s claim he was never served.
Dan Leco, counsel for the defendant, argued that Andre Andrews and the LLC had not received notice of the lawsuit or subsequent default proceedings and therefore that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment. Leco pointed to discrepancies in descriptions used in the process‑server affidavit and the defendant’s own physical characteristics and asserted his client had no recollection of being served.
Plaintiff counsel called witness Frank Swindle, a certified process server, who testified he visited 699 Roundtree Road and then followed a tip to 7278 Georgia Highway 85, where he encountered a man identifying himself as Andre Andrews. Swindle testified he handed the defendant copies of the summons and other case papers, took photographs of Andrews standing by signage at the business, and recorded that Andrews accepted the documents. Defense counsel objected to admission of late photographic evidence; the judge overruled the objection and admitted the photos into evidence.
After viewing the testimony and the photographs, the judge concluded the rebuttable presumption of proper service had been overcome and found that Andrews had been served. The judge denied the motion to open the default and instructed counsel to prepare an order reflecting the ruling.
What’s next: The judge directed counsel to submit a written order on the ruling and allowed plaintiff’s counsel to circulate it; the defendant remains able to pursue any available post‑judgment remedies but will not obtain relief on the ground of defective service based on this hearing.
