## Facts

- Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. sold lumber to Harris Plywood, Inc., which failed to pay for shipments made between May and August 1980.
- After negotiations in October 1980 (including an agreement to accrue interest and begin payments), Harris Plywood still did not pay.
- Mid-Continent sued Harris Plywood in federal court and obtained a default judgment on October 28, 1981, for $28,544.75.
- In December 1981, instead of executing on the corporate judgment, Mid-Continent accepted a promissory note signed by Lawrence A. Harris personally for the judgment amount.
- Harris did not pay the note, and Mid-Continent filed a new federal action against Harris to collect on it.
- Mid-Continent made multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve Harris (including attempted personal service, certified mail to his workplace, and attempts at an address believed to be his residence).
- Mid-Continent proceeded as though service had been completed and obtained a default judgment against Harris on the note.
- Harris later contested service, though the district court found he had knowledge of the lawsuit and collection efforts.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction and sustain a default judgment when service of process does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
2. Whether actual notice, diligent but unsuccessful service efforts, and equitable considerations can substitute for Rule 4’s service requirements in supporting a default judgment.
3. Whether the default judgment was void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) due to lack of personal jurisdiction from defective service.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the order denying Harris’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
- The court held the default judgment against Harris was void because service of process did not comply with Rule 4, so the district court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- The court rejected the district court’s reliance on a judicially created equitable test based on actual knowledge, diligence, and fairness.
- The court concluded that actual knowledge of the lawsuit cannot cure defective service and that the record did not support treating Harris as having evaded service.
- The case was to be resolved consistent with vacating the void judgment for lack of proper service.

## Legal Principles

- Valid service of process in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
- Actual notice of a lawsuit does not, by itself, satisfy Rule 4 or cure noncompliant service.
- A district court may not replace Rule 4’s specified service methods with a court-created standard based on diligence or equitable considerations.
- A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction due to defective service is void and must be set aside under Rule 60(b)(4).

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that strict compliance with Rule 4 is required to establish personal jurisdiction and that a default judgment entered without proper service is void, regardless of the defendant’s actual notice or the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service.


Mid-Continent Wood Prods., Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1991)