Bonneville Billing v. J. C. Johnston Company, et al
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
Bonneville Billing & Collection,
a Utah Corporation,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
John C. Johnston dba
J. C. Johnston Company,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. 990074
F I L E D
September 24, 1999
1999 UT 92
---
Second District, Davis County
The Honorable Darwin C. Hansen
Attorneys:
Ted K. Godfrey, Ogden, for plaintiff
David J. Berceau, Salt Lake City,
for defendant
---
DURHAM, Associate Chief Justice:
¶1
Defendant John C. Johnston dba J.
C. Johnston Company, appeals from a denial of his motion to set aside a
default judgment in favor of plaintiff Bonneville Billing & Collections,
Inc. Johnston alleges that the motion should have been granted because
of a failure of service of process.
¶2
On March 3, 1998, Bonneville filed
suit against Johnston, who runs a plumbing, heating, and air conditioning
business registered as a DBA with the Utah Department of Commerce Division
of Corporations. On February 22, 1998, a process server sought to serve
Johnston by leaving a copy of the complaint and summons with Johnston's
wife at the defendant's residence.
¶3
Subsequently, the trial court entered
a default judgment against Johnston. Johnston then filed a motion to set
aside the default judgment, alleging that service of process had failed
because it did not comply with section 16-10a-504 of Utah Code Ann. (1995),
which, he argues, is required by section 42-2-11(1)(a) of the Utah Code.
Section 42-2-11(1)(a) provides:
Any person conducting or transacting
business in this state under an assumed name under this chapter shall,
for service of process purposes, comply with and be subject to Sections
16-10a-501 through 16-10a-504, as though he were a corporation.
The trial court denied Johnston's motion.
We review the district court's determination for correctness.
See
State Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Vijil, 784 P.2d 1130, 1132 (Utah 1989);
Bonneville Billing v. Whatley, 949 P.2d 768 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).
¶4
The plain meaning of section 42-2-11(1)(a)
does not suggest that a person operating a business under an assumed name
is only subject to service of process if service conforms to the
requirements of sections 16-10a-501 through 504. The statute is not a shield
intended to protect persons operating under an assumed name but operates
rather to protect those who do business with such persons. In the present
case, Bonneville sued Johnston individually as "John C. Johnston dba J.
C. Johnston Co." Further, it served Johnston in accordance with the requirements
of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), which prescribes the appropriate
method of service for service of process upon an individual. The fact that
Johnston could also have been served in the same manner as a corporation
does not render such service improper. We therefore affirm the decision
of the trial court.
---
¶5
Chief Justice Howe, Justice Stewart,
Justice Zimmerman, and Justice Russon concur in Associate Chief Justice
Durham's opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.