## Facts

- The wife filed a California dissolution petition in 1977 and attempted to serve the husband, who lived in Arkansas, by first-class mail with return receipt requested under CCP § 415.40.
- The mail was sent to the husband’s correct Arkansas address; the return receipt was signed at that address by the husband’s mother, not by the husband.
- The wife obtained a default dissolution judgment in California, including custody orders; support was initially reserved.
- While the California case was pending, the husband filed a divorce action in Arkansas and served by publication.
- In 1978, the wife sought child and spousal support in California; the husband was personally served in California while visiting the children but did not appear, and the court ordered child support of $200 per month per child.
- In 1984, after the district attorney pursued child-support arrears, the husband moved to quash the 1977 summons service and to set aside the default judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion, relying in part on correspondence from the husband’s Arkansas attorney indicating the husband had received the California dissolution papers.

## Issues

1. Whether out-of-state service by mail under CCP § 415.40 is invalid when the return receipt is signed by a household member rather than the defendant.
2. Whether CCP § 417.20 requires proof that the summons and petition were actually delivered to, and receipted for by, the defendant personally.
3. Whether substantial compliance plus evidence of actual notice is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and uphold a default judgment against an out-of-state defendant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the motion to quash and to set aside the default judgment.
- Service under CCP § 415.40 was proper even though the return receipt bore the mother’s signature rather than the husband’s.
- The proof of service and related evidence provided reasonable assurance the husband received actual notice, satisfying statutory and due process concerns.
- Because personal jurisdiction was established, the default dissolution judgment was not void.

## Legal Principles

- CCP § 415.40 authorizes service outside California by mailing the summons and petition by first-class mail, postage prepaid, with a return receipt requested, to the person to be served.
- CCP § 417.20 governs proof of such service but does not compel a rigid requirement that the defendant personally sign the return receipt in every case.
- Service statutes are applied to effect their purpose—reasonable assurance of notice and an opportunity to be heard—rather than to invalidate proceedings on technical defects where actual notice is shown.
- Substantial compliance with statutory service requirements, supported by credible evidence of actual receipt, can establish personal jurisdiction sufficient to sustain a default judgment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a default dissolution judgment where out-of-state service by mail was sent to the defendant’s correct address and the return receipt was signed by his mother, because the record—including attorney correspondence—showed the defendant actually received notice and had a fair opportunity to appear.


In re Marriage of Tusinger, 170 Cal. App. 3d 80, 215 Cal. Rptr. 838 (Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1985)