Flashcards Studio

Scenario: In a civil action for collection of a promissory note, Suncrest Bank obtained a final judgment after a regular trial in the defendant’s absence. The defendant, GenTech Ltd., did not receive any service of summons. Service of summons was attempted by substituted service at GenTech’s former corporate address, where the company no longer operates and where no agent could be located. The judgment was entered, and about five months later GenTech, through counsel, filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 47, asserting lack of jurisdiction due to defective service and claiming that the judgment is void for due process purposes. The plaintiff opposes, arguing that collateral attack is improper for mere errors of law or fact and that GenTech should have challenged the judgment by appeal or by a direct motion; GenTech’s petition is timely because the defect was discovered and the petition was filed within the applicable period after discovery. (a) Identify the doctrine of collateral attack and the grounds on which it may be availed. (b) Distinguish collateral attack from direct post-judgment remedies, and state the limits and relevant time considerations. (c) Applying the facts, should GenTech Ltd. be granted relief from judgment through collateral attack? Explain your answer, focusing on lack of jurisdiction due to defective service and the effect on due process.