Soc, WTF happened in this?

[NancyLou]

I called the Clerk of Courts this morning to see about getting a copy of the Default Judgment so I could start up paperwork on the garnishment and found out the following:

The judge tore up the judgment order and entered an order of his own that states he feels we didn't serve the defendant properly in the case, that he wants to know why we're asking for so much, that he wants a hearing to give the defendant a chance to respond to the case.

a.  We had the court send the certified mailing to her place of employment, rather than her home, to assure that it would be signed for.  It was, she is the office manager, but she had one of the office workers sign for it.  

b.  The amount we're asking for is moot, as the defendant didn't respond.  Had she responded, then this would be relevant.

c.  The defendant had a chance to respond.  She didn't.

d.  The judge is saying that under Rule 16, he is setting it for hearing, which is a pre-trial hearing.  Since it is a default, isn't this going against the Rules of Civil Procedure?

Please advise.  I feel a Motion for Relief under Rule 60 is in order.  Need your advice on how to stop this woman and her passive-aggressive behavior.  Once again, she can something or she can do nothing and she gets everything.

[NancyLou]

That the summons was signed for by her employer.

The company she works for used to be part of a trucking company that has since been sold to a larger package delivery service.  The person that actually signed for the summons is the man that used to be the president of the location.  Now he is the Office Manager and the ex seems to have been demoted, sort of, as she was the Office Manager.

Is this a valid service?  Do I just pay the $35 to $100 to have her served again or can I just serve the person who signed with an affidavit asking him to state whether or not he gave her the summons?

Would appreciate your advice on this.

[NancyLou]

Also, have found out that the judge in this is calling upon Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which seems to assume that the defendant has entered an appearance.

What's up with that?  Can I rebut this in a Rule 60 Motion?

[socrateaser]

>That the summons was signed for by her employer.
>
>The company she works for used to be part of a trucking
>company that has since been sold to a larger package delivery
>service.  The person that actually signed for the summons is
>the man that used to be the president of the location.  Now he
>is the Office Manager and the ex seems to have been demoted,
>sort of, as she was the Office Manager.
>
>Is this a valid service?  Do I just pay the $35 to $100 to
>have her served again or can I just serve the person who
>signed with an affidavit asking him to state whether or not he
>gave her the summons?

Generally, service on an employer is not valid. You must serve the defendant, either personally or upon a person of reasonable age who resides with the defendant.