Dismissal for lack of service; MCR 2.102(E); Setting aside dismissal; MCR 2.102(F); Applicability of MCR 2.105(K)(3)

Holding that the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of service, the court affirmed. The parties were married. The summons was issued on 12/10/24 and expired on 3/11/25. “MCR 2.105(A)(1)-(2) required plaintiff to serve process on defendant personally or by registered or certified mail, before the” expiration date. But “the returned proof of service indicated that process was served on [12/19/24], by certified mail on plaintiff, ‘Willie Morgan,’ not defendant.” While plaintiff asserted “that this error was a technical deficiency, the mailing address where service was made was associated with an attorney who represented defendant in an unrelated matter. In other words, plaintiff failed to show that defendant actually received service of process, given that the attorney did not accept service on [her] behalf.” The court concluded that, for “these reasons, dismissal was proper because plaintiff failed to provide proof of service before the summons expired, and because there was no proof of service” he failed to “meet the conditions required under MCR 2.102(F) to set aside the dismissal.” The court added that MCR 2.105(K)(3) did not alter this result. The trial court record did “not indicate that defendant was informed of the action timely. The only individual served with process was an attorney who was not representing [her] in this dispute and did not accept service on defendant’s behalf.” Further, she did not submit to the trial court’s jurisdiction during the proceedings.