During the time period relevant to this case, I resided at 4817 Shadow Pointe Drive. However, I experienced periods of housing instability caused by a combination of disability- related impairments, unsafe conditions in the home, and utility shutoffs by AES due to billing errors and failures to accommodate my disability.
As a result, there were two occasions where I was forced to be away from the residence for most of the day due to lack of power and unsafe living conditions, totaling no more than approximately two days. These absences were not voluntary but caused by circumstances beyond my control.
Even when present in the home, I was not reliably able to receive notices because the environment was unstable, utilities were intermittently disconnected, and I was managing crisis conditions and disability-related limitations which impaired my ability to process irregular or incomplete communications.
Because of these circumstances, leaving a “copy” at the residence was not reasonably calculated to provide me notice, and I did not receive the summons, complaint, or any possession notices.
UPDATED AFFIDAVIT LANGUAGE
During the time period relevant to this case, I resided continuously at 4817 Shadow Pointe Drive. I was home approximately 99% of the time, often for stretches of one to three weeks at a time without leaving the house due to lack of transportation, limited financial resources, and disability-related impairments. I worked from home during this time and rarely had reason or ability to leave.
Despite my consistent presence in the home, I was never personally served with any summons, complaint, notice, or legal documents. No sheriff’s deputy or process server ever handed me papers or called out to me. If they knocked, it was not done in a manner reasonably calculated to gain my attention, as I require additional time to process noise, orient myself, and physically respond due to disability-related limitations. No one waited at the door, announced themselves, or made any sustained attempt to reach me.
The Sheriff’s Returns filed on March 5, 2025 and April 15, 2025 are inaccurate. On both dates I was home for the entire day and did not receive any documents. If a “copy left” document was placed somewhere, it was not placed on my door, in my mailbox, or in any location where I would ordinarily find important communications.
There were two isolated occasions, totaling no more than approximately two days, where I was forced to leave the residence for most of the day due to crisis conditions including AES utility shutoff and unsafe living circumstances. These brief absences were not voluntary; they were caused by disability-related barriers and utility failure. They do not change the fact that I was overwhelmingly present in the home during all service attempts.
Because of my disabilities, the instability within the home, and the improper and incomplete service methods used, leaving a “copy” somewhere was not reasonably calculated to provide notice. I did not receive the summons, complaint, any foreclosure notices, or any post-sale demand for possession.
During this period, I was also assisting an Afghan ally and Army veteran with language interpretation, translation, and general procedural guidance related to navigating various agencies and paperwork. I did not and do not provide legal advice or legal representation to anyone. My assistance was limited to communication support, helping understand written English, and explaining non-legal procedural steps.
To the extent any documents may have later been found among other papers in the home, this does not constitute proper service under Indiana Trial Rule 4.1, nor did it provide me with actual or timely notice of any hearing, deadline, or required move-out date. At no time was personal service completed, nor was I notified of any date by which I was required to vacate the property.
I affirm under penalties of perjury that the above is true.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Indiana Trial Rule 4.1(B), when service is attempted by leaving a copy at the dwelling or usual place of abode, the process server must also mail a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant by first-class mail, and due return must reflect both steps. Failure to complete both steps renders service defective.
Under Trial Rule 4.15(F), only minor defects in form may be excused. A complete failure to comply with the requirements of Trial Rule 4.1(B) is not a minor defect and does not invoke Rule 4.15(F). See Munster v. Groce line of cases.
Because service was not completed according to Trial Rule 4.1(B), the Court did not acquire personal jurisdiction. A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio and must be set aside. See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).
In the alternative, Defendant seeks relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(1) for excusable neglect, as his disability substantially affected his ability to interpret irregular or defective notices. This filing is within one year of the judgment.