Narria Investments Ltd. filed a suit in a Texas State Court against several defendants, including Harveston Securities Inc., a securities dealer. Harvestons is registered with the state of Texas and thus may be served with a summons and a copy of a complaint by serving the Texas securities commissioner. In this case, the return of service indicated that process was served on the commissioner “by delivering to JoAnn Kocerek defendant, in person, a true copy of this summons together with the accompanying copies of the complaint.” Harvestons did not file an answer, and Narnia obtained a default judgment against the defendant for $365,000, plus attorneys’ fees and interest. Five months after this judgment, Harvestons filed a motion of a new trial, which the court denied. Harvestons appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, claiming that it had not been served in strict compliance with the rules governing the service of process.

5. Harveston asserted that Narnia’s service was invalid in part because “the return of service states that process was delivered to “JoAnn Kocerek” and did not show that she “had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner.” SHOULD SUCH A DETAIL, IF IT IS REQUIRED, BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND APPLIED? EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE

6. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO SEE THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS IS ACCOMPLISHED PROPERLY? WAS IT ACCOMPLISHED PROPERLY IN THIS CASE? WHY OR WHY NOT?

5. The requirement of strict compliance with the rules governing service of process should not be applied in this case. While it is true that the return of service stated that process was delivered to "JoAnn Kocerek" without specifically showing her authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner, this is not a significant detail that should render the service invalid.

In general, courts do not demand absolute perfection when it comes to technicalities in service of process. The purpose of serving process is to give the defendant notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity to respond, and as long as the defendant receives actual notice, minor technicalities like the absence of specific authority documentation should not invalidate the service. In this case, the fact that the process was personally delivered to JoAnn Kocerek is sufficient to establish that Harvestons received actual notice of the lawsuit.

6. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to ensure that service of process is accomplished properly. In this case, Narnia Investments Ltd. was responsible for serving Harvestons with the summons and copy of the complaint.

However, it seems that service of process was accomplished properly in this case. The return of service indicates that the process was served on the commissioner by delivering it to JoAnn Kocerek, who is presumably a representative of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner. The fact that the process was delivered in person to a representative of the defendant is a valid method of service that satisfies the requirement of providing notice to the defendant.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Narnia Investments Ltd. fulfilled its responsibility of serving process properly in this case.

5. Whether or not such a detail should be strictly construed and applied depends on the specific rules and regulations governing service of process in the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed. In general, service of process should be done in accordance with the applicable laws and rules to ensure that the defendant is properly notified of the lawsuit and has an opportunity to present their defense.

In this case, the return of service indicated that process was delivered to JoAnn Kocerek, who is named as a defendant in the case. It is not mentioned whether she had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner. If the rules in Texas require strict compliance with regard to the authority of the person accepting the process on behalf of the defendant, then this detail may be relevant. However, if the rules allow for broad interpretation and acceptance of process by any agent of the defendant, then this detail may not be crucial.

6. The responsibility to ensure that service of process is accomplished properly lies with the party initiating the lawsuit, in this case, Narnia Investments Ltd. It is their responsibility to serve the summons and complaint to the defendant in accordance with the applicable laws and rules.

In this case, Narnia served the summons and complaint to the Texas securities commissioner, who is a registered agent for Harvestons Securities Inc. The return of service indicated that process was served to JoAnn Kocerek, who is named as a defendant. It is not specified whether she had the authority to accept the process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner.

Whether or not the service of process was accomplished properly in this case would depend on whether the rules in Texas allow for the Texas securities commissioner or its agent to accept process on behalf of Harvestons. If so, then the service of process would be considered proper. If not, then there may be an issue with the service of process. The exact rules governing service of process in Texas would need to be consulted to determine whether it was accomplished properly in this case.