Volume 5 Winter 2011 Number 2 - Charleston Law Review

2011] Errors in Judgmentdirectors. 95In Munster, the Indiana Court of Appeals allowed validservice of process on a corporation where the plaintiff failed tomail a copy of the summons to the defendant after the plaintiffhad left a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant’sresidence pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 4.1(A)(3) 96 because therecord showed that it was undisputed that the process servercalled the defendant the next day to make sure he received thesummons and complaint. 97 The court held that where thedefendant does not dispute having actually received thesummons and complaint the service will not be deemedineffective. 98To make matters more interesting, the court had recentlyheld in Volunteers of America v. Premier Auto 99 that IndianaTrial Rule 4.6(A) requires that service be directed to an executiveofficer and not solely to the corporation. 100 Because of thistechnical legal faux pas, the court held that Premier Auto’sservice upon Volunteers of America was insufficient for personaljurisdiction. 101The court in Munster distinguished the holding in Volunteersof America on the basis that in Volunteers of America the servicewas made by mail and no executive officer of Volunteers ofAmerica received actual notice. 102 On the contrary, service inMunster was hand-delivered, and the executive officer of BWIreceived actual notice. 103 Because of the actual notice, the courtignored the plain language of Indiana Trial Rule 4.6(A) and95. Id.96. Id. at 63.97. Id.98. Id. (citing Boczar v. Reuben, 742 N.E.2d 1010, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App.2001)).99. 755 N.E.2d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).100. Volunteers of Am. v. Premier Auto, 755 N.E.2d 656, 660 (Ind. Ct. App.2001) (citing Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Mapps, 717 N.E.2d 947, 953 (Ind.Ct. App. 2001)).101. Id.102. Munster, 829 N.E.2d at 63–64.103. Id. at 64.211