§ Rule 16 Default judgment against defendant served solely by publication

Rule 16. Default judgment against defendant served solely by publication

    When a default judgment sought in any action against a party-defendant who was served solely by publication (i.e., upon whom no notice by mailing was effected), the judge shall conduct an inquiry either in open court or in chambers to determine judicially whether plaintiff, or someone acting in his behalf, did make a diligent and meaningful search of all reasonably available sources at hand and failed to ascertain from it the following data:

    (a) the whereabouts or mailing address of every person named as defendant who was so served in the action;
or if publication service was directed in the alternative to a named defendant if living, or if dead, to the “unknown heirs,  executors, administrators, trustees, devisees and assigns, if any;”

    (b) the whereabouts or mailing address of every person named as defendant if living;

    (c) whether such person is living or dead;

    (d) and if dead, the individual identity and whereabouts of his “heirs, executors, devisees, trustees or assigns, if any;”
or if publication service was directed to the unknown heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, trustees and assigns, immediate and remote, of a deceased person;

    (e) the individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address of persons who were so served;
or if publication service was directed to the unknown successors, trustees or assigns, if any, of any dissolved corporation;  or to the unknown successors of any party designated in any record as a trustee; or to the unknown holders of special assessment or improvement bond, sewer warrant or tax bill; or to any corporation whose continued legal existence is alleged to be in doubt but the fact of its dissolution is not known;

    (f) the individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address of such unknown successors, trustees, etc. of any dissolved corporation;

    (g) the individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address of any successor of one designated in any record as trustee;

    (h) the individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address of any holders of special assessment or improvement bond, sewer warrant or tax bill;

    (i) whether the corporate defendant continues to have legal existence or not; whether it has officers or not, and the officers' individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address; or the identity and whereabouts or mailing address of successors, trustees or assigns, if any, if defendant corporation was in fact dissolved. At the inquiry required by this rule plaintiff should show by competent evidence that all reasonably available sources, where applicable, were in fact searched  and failed to yield the information necessary to establish;

        (a) the whereabouts or mailing address of the named defendant;

        (b) or the individual identity and whereabouts or mailing address of his heirs, successors, etc.;

        (c) or the status of a corporation and the whereabouts of its officers or successors.

    In all cases affecting interest in or title to land, the following shall be searched as primary sources:

        (a) local assessor's records

        (b) local county treasurer's records

        (c) local deed records as to the property involved for return address on recorded instruments

        (d) local probate records if applicable.

    An evidentiary affidavit by a bonded abstracter detailing the records and other sources searched by him and the information yielded by the search may be admitted as evidence at the inquiry conducted in compliance with this rule. 12 O.S.1981, Sec. 431.

    If, after hearing the evidence the judge finds that plaintiff did in fact exercise due diligence in conducting a meaningful search, the following recitation should be included in the journal entry of judgment:

    “The Court conducted a judicial inquiry into the sufficiency of plaintiff's search to determine the names and whereabouts of the defendants who were served herein by publication, and based on the evidence adduced the Court finds that plaintiff has exercised due diligence and has conducted a meaningful search of all reasonably available sources at hand. The Court approves the publication service given herein as meeting both statutory requirements and the minimum standards of state and federal due process.”