Hall v. Folger Coffee Co.

At issue in this writ application is whether the court of appeal properly reversed the district court’s factual finding that the evidence presented by Folger Coffee Co., the plaintiff in this nullity action, that its agent for service of process, CT Corporation, was not properly served with process of the petition, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity afforded a completed sheriffs return of service under La. Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292. Finding that the court of appeal improperly substituted its own judgment for the judgment of the district court, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal. Accordingly, we reinstate the judgment of the district court, which had annulled the default judgment rendered in favor of defendants, Roy W. and Helen Hall, against plaintiff, Folger Coffee Company.

| .FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 10, 1995, the Halls filed a personal injury action in Civil District Court for Orleans Parish against Folger, seeking recovery of damages allegedly re-suiting from a November 15, 1994, accident that occurred when Mr. Hall fell from a platform at Folger’s warehouse in New Orleans while delivering coffee cans in the course of his employment with another company. The Halls’ petition included a request that Folger be served “through the Agent for Service of Process, CT Corporation Systems, 8550 United Plaza Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA. 70809.” Although CT claims that the petition was never served, the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office completed a return on service indicating that service was made on CT Corporation by “handing said copy to Mary Belton, Assistant Secretary, in person,” on November 1, 1995; the service return is signed by East Baton Rouge Parish Deputy Harvey Thompson, a 17-year process server in the Civil Process Department. The return was mailed to the clerk of the Civil District Court in Orleans Parish, as required by 'La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292, and thereafter became a part of the record.

After Folger failed to timely file an answer or other responsive pleadings, the district court entered a preliminary default judgment against Folger on January 24, I.o,1996, as allowed by La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1701(A). The default was confirmed on July 15, 1996, when the district court entered judgment on behalf of the Halls. Mr. Hall was awarded $910,572.70 in damages, while Ms. Hall was awarded $45,000 for loss of consortium. The default judgment was mailed to Folger, through its agent for service of process, CT Corporation, by the clerk of Civil District Court, as allowed by La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1913(C). CT Corporation notified Folger of the default judgment, then sent the default judgment to Folger’s parent corporation, Proctor and Gamble, by Federal Express.

Following its receipt of the default judgment on August 1, 1996, Folger filed a motion for suspensive appeal and posted the required appeal bond. Thereafter, Folger filed a Nullity Action under the provisions of La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 2002(A)(2), which provides as follows:

A. A final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered:

‡ ‡ ‡

14(2) Against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not waived objection to jurisdiction, or against whom a valid judgment by default has not been taken.

The basis for Folger’s Nullity Action was its claim that service of process was never served on CT Corporation. Folger filed a motion for summary judgment making that assertion. That motion was granted by the district court. However, the summary judgment was reversed by the court of appeal, which found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the pivotal issue related to whether service of process had been properly effected on Folger through CT Corporation.

Following the remand of the case to the district court, the Halls, joined later by T.T.C., filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action, arguing that Folger had made a general appearance on August 21, 1996, when it filed its Motion for Suspensive Appeal of the default judgment in the district court, seeking review of “all aspects” of the judgment. Under the provisions of La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 2002(A)(2), quoted above, a party that has made a general appearance is not entitled to a judgment of nullity. The district court overruled those exceptions. The court of appeal denied writs filed by the Halls and T.T.C on that issue. This court thereupon denied the request for stay and for supervisory writs filed by the Halls and T.T.C.

Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in the Nullity Action in favor of Folger, nullifying the default judgment and giving as its written reasons the legal argument portion of Fol-ger’s post-trial memorandum, which ar-gúed that the |fiproven facts, coupled with applicable law, supported Folger’s position at the trial of the case. The Halls and T.T.C. appealed the judgment that annulled the Halls’ default judgment. The court of appeal reversed, concluding as follows:

Given that both the East Baton Rouge Sheriffs Office and CT routinely handle a large volume of services, that neither entity had a fool-proof record keeping system, and that neither entity knew for certain if service was actually made, we find the decisive factor to be the presumption of validity given the sheriffs return. As noted, the unrebutted presumption preponderates in favor of finding that service was made on CT, Fol-ger’s professional agent for service of process. We thus hold that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that Folger rebutted the presumption and in annulling the default judgment.

Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2002-0920, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/9/03), 843 So.2d 623, 634-35. We granted Folger’s writ application to consider whether the court of appeal correctly overturned the district court’s decision, which had nullified the default judgment. Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2003-1734 (La.10/17/03), 855 So.2d 744.

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

Under the provisions of La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292, a sheriffs return of service of process “shall be considered prima facie correct.” The impact of that statement is explained by reference to the provisions of La.Code of Evidence, Chapter 3, “Effect in Civil Cases of Presumptions and Prima Facie Evidence.” | (¡According to that chapter, “[[legislation providing that a document or other evidence is prima facie evidence ... establishes a presumption under this Chapter.” “Presumption” is defined as “an inference created by legislation that the trier of fact must draw if it finds the existence of the predicate fact unless the trier of fact is persuaded by evidence of the nonexistence of the fact to be inferred.” The only presumptions regulated by Chapter 3 of the La.Code of Evidence “are rebuttable presumptions [that] therefore may be controverted or overcome by appropriate evidence.” “If the trier of fact finds the existence of the predicate fact, and if there is evidence controverting the fact to be inferred, it shall find the existence of the inferred fact unless it is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact.”

The rule that may be extracted from reference to all of the above provisions is stated in Official Comment (b) to La.Code of Evid. 308, which states that “[w]hen the predicate fact is established it shifts the burden of persuasion of the nonexistence of the inferred fact to the opponent.” The phrase “burden of persuasion” is defined as “the burden of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact.” The “degree of belief’ required “may be by a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, or as otherwise required by law.” According to this court’s most recent pronouncement on the subject, the burden of persuasion that applies to a party seeking to overcome |7the rebuttable presumption afforded a completed sheriffs return of service by La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292 is preponderance of the evidence. Roper v. Dailey, 393 So.2d 85 (La.1981). Accordingly, the party attacking service must prove that, more probably than not, proper service was not made. Id., 393 So.2d at 88.

Consideration of all of the above principles reveals the following method for determining a Nullity Action based on insufficient service of process:

1. The trier of fact must determine the existence of the “predicate fact” — i.e., whether the record contains a completed sheriffs return of service.

2. If the predicate fact exists, the trier of fact must draw the inference created by the legislature — i.e., that the sheriffs return of service is valid.

3. The party attacking the validity of the sheriffs return of service must be allowed to present “appropriate evidence” to controvert or overcome the presumption created by the first two steps.

4. The trier of fact must determine whether it is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact.

5. If the trier of fact is not persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact, it must find the existence of the inferred fact.

6. If, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact is persuaded by the controverting evidence of the nonexistence of the inferred fact, it may find that the inferred fact does not exist.

|sThe record in the instant case indicates that the district court properly applied the rebuttable presumption of validity afforded the completed sheriffs return. Following a trial on the merits, the district court found that the evidence presented by Fol-ger was sufficient to overcome the presumption. In effect, the district court’s judgment is based on her being persuaded by the controverting evidence presented by Folger of the non-existence of the inferred fact — the latter being that service had been properly made on CT Corporation. Accordingly, the district court annulled the default judgment against Fol-ger. The court of appeal’s reversal is based on its review of the record evidence and its conclusion that the presumption of validity should be the “decisive factor” since neither the sheriffs office nor CT Corporation had proven “a fool-proof record keeping system.” The court of appeal found that Folger did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity because it failed to prove that it was “impossible” for service to have been made.

Folger raises three assignments of error on appeal: (1) that the evidence it presented at trial was sufficient to overcome the presumed validity of the sheriffs return by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) that the court of appeal misapplied the burden of proof in direct contravention of law established by this court, and (3) that the court of appeal improperly performed an unwarranted de novo review. Because determination of the appropriate- appellate standard of review is critical to our consideration of the other issues raised by Fol-ger, we will address the last of Folger’s assignments of error first.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court of appeal opinion in this case does not- expressly discuss the standard of review that it would apply to the district court’s findings in this case, although it |9does conclude by stating that “the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that Folger rebutted the presumption and in annulling the default judgment.” Fol-ger argues that the court of appeal actually performed a de novo review of the evidence in its opinion.

In civil eases, the' appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the manifest error.— clearly wrong standard, which precludes the setting aside of a district court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety. Cenac v. Public Access Water Rights Ass’n, 2002-2660, p. 9, (La.6/27/03),851 So.2d 1006, 1023. Thus, a reviewing court may not merely decide if it would have found the facts of the cáse differently. Id. The reviewing court should affirm the district court where the district court judgment is not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id. at 9-10, 851 So.2d at 1023.

Reference to the provisions of the Louisiana Code of Evidence quoted above clearly reveals that determination of whether a party challenging the validity of a sheriffs return of service has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption is a factual question, as those articles refer repeatedly to “predicate facts” and “inferred facts” and expressly leaves the decision of whether the party attacking the presumption has presented sufficient evidence to overcome.the presumption to the factfinder. Because the only issue in this case is a factual one, we find that the appropriate standard of review is the manifest error standard.

We further find that the court of appeal’s rote recitation of the phrase “manifestly erroneous” does not end this court’s inquiry as to whether the court of appeal applied the correct standard of review. In fact, both parties argue that the court of appeal applied the de novo standard of review. The Halls argue that the de novo standard was the correct standard to be applied to this case. They assert that the |indistrict court committed legal errors that properly triggered the use of that standard of review. However, the only question before the district court was a factual question — i.e., whether Folger submitted sufficient controverting evidence to persuade the trier of fact of the nonexistence of the inferred fact that CT Corporation was properly served with service of process. The manifest error standard of review applies to all factual findings, including the district court’s factual finding in this case that the evidence presented by Folger proved, more likely than not, that the Halls’ original petition was never properly served on CT Corporation.

We are aware of the position of the dissenting justices that a “sufficiency of the evidence” challenge involves a legal question to which the de novo standard of review should be applied. It should be noted however that this court has already rejected that argument in Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Department Ambulance Service, 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 216 and, more recently, by unanimous vote in Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 2003-0136 (La.10/21/03), 857 So.2d 407, 416. In both of those cases, this court held that the manifest error standard of review applies to all factual findings, including sufficiency of the evidence challenges. We acknowledge, however, the well-established principle of Louisiana law that legal sufficiency of the evidence challenges, such as those presented by motions for summary judgment, motions for directed verdict, and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, are subject to the de novo standard of review that is used for all legal issues.

With the manifest error standard of review in mind, we note that the parties presented conflicting evidence on the pivotal issue in this case, as further detailed below. In such circumstances, one of the basic tenets of the manifest error standard of review is that “reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact | ^should not be disturbed upon review, even though the court of appeal is convinced that had it been the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Parish Nat Bank v. Ott, 2002-1562 (La.2/25/03), 841 So.2d 749, 753. This principle is further explained in Ott as follows:

This court has announced a two-part test for the reversal of the factfinder’s determinations: (1) the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and (2) the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact is right or wrong but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one.... The reviewing court must always keep in mind that if the trial court’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the appellate court may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.

Id. at 753-54, quoting Stobart v. State Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).

Nothing in the court of appeal decision in this case indicates that it found that the record does not contain a reasonable factual basis for the district court’s conclusion that the evidence presented by Folger rebutted the presumptively valid completed sheriffs return of service. In the absence of such a finding, the court of appeal had no basis for reversing the district court judgment. Accordingly, we will review the evidence presented by the parties to determine (1) whether a reasonable factual basis exists for the district court’s findings and (2) whether those findings are manifestly erroneous.

CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY FOLGER

hjJn its first assignment of error, Folger claims that it overcame the presumed validity of the sheriffs return by a preponderance of the evidence. At trial of this matter, Folger presented the testimony of three CT Corporation employees who worked at the Baton Rouge office: Mary Belton, office manager; Jenny Fitch, special assistant secretary; and Shawna Smith, fulfillment specialist. All three CT Corporation employees testified to the procedures routinely used to process documents served on CT Corporation as agent for service of process for numerous entities.

The testimony indicated that a bundle of service documents, none of which had return of service forms attached, were delivered to CT Corporation at approximately 9 a.m. each morning. The first CT Corporation employee to arrive each morning, which, Ms. Belton testified, was usually Ms. Fitch, received the bundle of service documents, which she unbundled and counted. The number of service documents in the bundle would then be recorded on a legal pad; that number would be updated throughout the day as other service documents were received from other sources. Immediately after receipt, the service documents would be divided among the CT | ^Corporation employees who would be responsible for processing them during the day. The employees then processed the service documents, eventually preparing the documents to be sent to the entities to whom they were directed, usually through Federal Express, which picked up the service documents at the end of each work day. The step-by-step procedures used to process the service documents required the CT Corporation employees to verify that the entity to which the service documents were directed were CT Corporation customers, then to activate a delivery instruction computer screen, and finally to activate a “transmittal screen,” which would generate a transmittal letter that was included in the package with the documents.

Because of these procedures, all service documents were entered into CT Corporation’s computer system, the employees asserted. At the end of the day, the number of services processed in the computer was reconciled with the number of services delivered to the company, as indicated by the running tally kept on the legal pad. Both Ms. Belton and Ms. Fitch testified that, when CT Corporation received the default judgment in this case, they searched CT Corporation’s computer database and found no evidence that the Halls’ original petition had been received in the CT Corporation office, or that the petition had been served on CT Corporation.

Ms. Belton also testified to “mistakes” made by the East Baton Rouge Sheriffs Office related to the delivery of original service documents to CT Corporation. According to Ms. Belton, CT Corporation has received papers not intended for the company, has received service documents that had not been separated from other service documents, and has received the sheriffs return of service attached to service documents. Sometime after November 1,1995, Ms. Belton said, the East Baton Rouge Sheriffs Department changed the method of service of process on CT Corporation and started providing a printout of the service documents allegedly |14included in the packet. Prior to the time the sheriffs office started including that printout, there was no way for CT Corporation to confirm that it had received all the service documents it was supposed to have received on any given day, Ms. Belton noted. Following that time, CT Corporation has received bundles of service documents that did not include all the documents listed on the printout, as well as bundles that included service documents not listed on the printout, she said. On cross-examination, Ms. Belton admitted that CT Corporation itself has also made mistakes, such as sending service documents to addresses that are no longer current and accepting service documents for a company for which it does not serve as agent for service of process.

The record also contains evidence of the procedures used by the East Baton Rouge Sheriffs Office to process service documents. Although that testimony was presented at trial by the Halls, Folger claims that that testimony, of the sheriffs office employees, ultimately supports Folger’s position that, more likely than not, the petition was never served on CT Corporation. Pursuant to the procedures in place in 1995, a specific deputy in the Civil Process Department of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office, Deputy Nora McGee, was assigned to process the requests for service directed to CT Corporation as agent for service of process for various entities. At the time of the alleged service in this case, Deputy McGee had only worked in the Civil Process Department for about two months, she stated by deposition. The procedures she used were the ones in place when she started working in that department,, she said. Deputy McGee testified that she and the deputy assigned to compile the service requests going to the Secretary of State’s office would open the mail in the morning, and separate the requests that were going to CT Corporation from those going to the Secretary of State and from other “regular services.”

| ^Thereafter, Deputy McGee would take the service requests going to CT Corporation and process the checks sent to pay for the service by the various parishes requesting service of documents. She then took the service requests in the order of parishes and stamped them with a clock. After they had all been stamped, she would separate the original service documents from the return of service documents, then count both stacks to be sure she had the same number of documents in each stack. Deputy McGee admitted that she rarely checked the stack of original service documents against the stack of return of service documents once they were separated. After counting both stacks, she would place all the original service documents directed to CT Corporation into one bundle, which she would secure with rubber bands vertically and horizontally so that nothing could fall out. Finally, she typed a list of the documents on a ledger page, using the return of' service documents as a guide. The list indicated the parish that sent'the documents, the party to be served, the suit number, and the check number. Deputy McGee confirmed Ms. Belton’s testimony that, sometime after the alleged date of service in this case, November 1, 1995, the sheriffs department got computers and started preparing the list by computer. A copy of the computerized list was then included at the top of the bundle of service documents sent to CT Corporation, she said. Deputy McGee testified that she had earlier asked why a copy of the list on the ledger sheet was not sent to CT Corporation along with the original service documents, but that she was told that was not part of the procedure.

According to Deputy McGee, the bundle of original service documents would not be disturbed once it had been secured with rubber bands except on the rare occasions when she discovered a problem as she was typing up the list. After she typed the list, she bundled up the return of service documents and secured the bundle | -^horizontally and vertically with rubber bands, in the same manner as the bundle of original service documents was secured. The bundle of original service documents would be given to Deputy Thompson for delivery to CT Corporation the next morning. The bundle of return of service documents would be placed in Deputy Thompson’s basket at the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office to be completed at a later date. Deputy Thompson described virtually the same procedure in his deposition testimony, saying that he has had to perform the job described by Deputy McGee from time to time and that everyone in the Sheriffs Office does it the same way.

Deputy McGee admitted that CT Corporation sometimes received original service documents that it was not supposed to receive, but said it happened only very rarely, usually because the parish sending the documents misdirected them to CT Corporation. When that occurred, CT Corporation sent the documents back to Deputy McGee, who then modified her typed list to reflect the fact that CT Corporation should not have received the documents, at which time the return of service documents for those documents would be removed from the bundle of documents to be completed by Deputy Thompson. Unless that happened, Deputy McGee testified that she never removed anything from the bundle of service returns that she had placed in Deputy Thompson’s basket.

Deputy Thompson testified by deposition that he would pick up the bundle of service documents directed to CT Corporation from Deputy McGee every morning. He would then take the bundle and deliver it to an employee at the CT Corporation without opening it or looking to see what documents the bundle contained. According |17to Deputy Thompson, the policy at the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office was to leave all return of service documents at the office, not to leave them attached to the original service documents before they were served. According to the log kept by the Sheriffs Office, he served 57 documents on CT Corporation on November 1, 1995, Deputy Thompson said.

At some point either the day after service was made or the day after that, back at the sheriffs office, Deputy Thompson would sign the sheriffs return of service documents, indicating that he had served each of the documents on CT Corporation. According to Deputy Thompson, the reason for the delay in completing the return of service documents was to give CT Corporation an opportunity to go through everything and see if the addresses were correct and if they had properly been served with the original service documents. He completed the return of service documents by stamping them with a stamp that read: “CT CORPORATION, by Mary Belton,” then stamping them with his individual signature stamp. Although the stamp indicates that the original service documents were served on Ms. Belton, Deputy Thompson said that it was his understanding that documents often were served on any employee of a business to which they were directed. So long as the employee does not say that he or she cannot receive service, the process servers gave it to “whomever,” he said. Once the return of service documents had been stamped, they were mailed by the sheriffs office to the parishes where they originated, Deputy Thompson said.

After the sheriffs department started sending the log detailing the original service documents purportedly contained in the bundle prepared by Deputy McGee, |1SCT Corporation would check the bundle and confirm that all of the documents listed were actually in the bundle it received. Deputy Thompson would then pick up the log and file it in the sheriffs department along with the original log sheet. Deputy Thompson testified that, at the time his deposition was taken, he did not complete return of service documents until after CT Corporation had confirmed that all the original service documents on the list had actually been delivered. Deputy Thompson said that he has a “rule” that he will not complete a return of service document until CT Corporation has confirmed that the documents had actually been served. The list is used to confirm that all the returns are correct, he said.

Deputy Raymond Antoine, supervisor of the Civil Process Division of the East Ba-tón Rouge Sheriffs Department at the time of trial and assistant supervisor on November 1, 1995, generally described the same “standard office procedure” summarized above during his live testimony at trial. Further, both Deputy Bennet and Deputy Raymond Antoine, assistant supervisor of the Civil Service Department of the East Baton Rouge Sheriffs Office on November 1, 1995, who testified by deposition, described a meeting they had with representatives of CT Corporation that occurred when CT Corporation moved to Baton Rouge from New Orleans. During that meeting, the procedures used to deliver service documents to CT Corporation were discussed and the described system was adopted without objection from CT Corporation representatives, Deputies Bennet and Antoine said. CT Corporation did not ask during that meeting for any special list of the services delivered to their office, Deputy Antoine said.

Deputy Antoine also testified that the returns of service documents never leave the sheriffs department in East Baton Rouge Parish and that none of the'deputies 113making service complete the returns contemporaneously with the delivery. He further stated that, after CT Corporation questioned whether the Halls’ original petition had ever been served in this case, the sheriffs office started sending a roster listing the services contained in the bundle when it was delivered to CT Corporation. The decision to send the list was made by the sheriffs office, without a request from CT Corporation, Deputy Antoine said. Deputy Antoine also admitted that the stamped return of service on all documents served on CT Corporation would say that they were served on Ms. Belton, even if Ms. Belton was not in the CT Corporation office at the time service was made, pursuant to CT Corporation’s instructions to the sheriffs office.

As Folger points out, Deputy Thompson’s testimony clearly reveals that he did not know, even at the time he delivered the bundle of service documents to CT Corporation on November 1,1995, whether that bundle contained the plaintiffs’ petition in this case. Accordingly, Folger argues that Deputy Thompson’s return of service, essentially a recitation that he had made personal service of a given document on a particular CT Corporation employee, if not simply an unsupportable assertion, is meaningless.

Our review of the record evidence convinces us that the district court did not commit manifest error when she found, on the facts presented, that, more likely than not, service was never effected on Folger through CT Corporation. The district court judgment annulling the default judgment herein indicates that the district court was persuaded by Folger’s controverting evidence of the non-existence of the inferred fact. The district court thus found that Folger’s evidence rebutted the presumption of validity afforded to the completed sheriffs return on service. We cannot say, on the basis of our review of this record, that no reasonable factual basis exists for the | ¡>ndistrict court’s finding in that regard, and that the district court’s decision was manifestly erroneous.

The record evidence is clear that Deputy Thompson did not know whether he delivered the Halls’ original petition to CT Corporation on November 1, 1995. The record evidence is also clear that Deputy Thompson’s statement on the return of service that he delivered the Halls’ petition personally to Mary Belton is suspect, as Ms. Belton testified that Ms. Fitch usually received the bundle of documents and Deputy Thompson testified to his belief that any employee of a business could receive service. Further, Deputy Thompson had no specific recollection of the identity of the person who received the bundle on November 1, 1995. We also note the testimony from Ms. Belton regarding the “mistakes” made by the sheriffs department in making service on CT Corporation, both before and after the sheriffs department started including a printout of the documents allegedly contained in the bundle, including the omission of documents allegedly included. Accordingly, we find that the court of appeal improperly reversed the district court decision. We therefore reverse the court of appeal judgment and reinstate the district court’s judgment, which had annulled the default judgment.

We note that this decision is based on our finding that the district court’s factual findings in this case were not manifestly erroneous. The court of appeal improperly focused on Folger’s inability to prove that service was impossible and upon the evidence that, in its view, proved that neither the sheriffs office nor CT Corporation had a “foolproof record keeping system.” However, Folger was not required to prove that CT Corporation’s systems were foolproof in order to fulfill its burden of overcoming the statutory presumption of validity afforded the completed sheriffs return by a preponderance of the evidence. Folger was only required to submit |aievidence sufficient to convince the trier of fact that proper service had not been made. The trial court’s factual finding that Folger presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence is entitled to deference under the manifest error standard that applies to this case.

Finally, we agree with Folger’s second assignment of error, in which it asserts that the court of appeal misapplied the burden of persuasion in this case by essentially requiring Folger to prove insufficiency of service beyond all doubt. As pointed out by Folger, the court of appeal specifically recited the fact that “neither entity knew for certain if service was actually made” in support of its conclusion that “the presumption of validity given the sheriffs return” was the “decisive factor” in this case. Hall, 2002-0920 at p., 843 So.2d at 634. Further, the court of appeal essentially held that a party can overcome the presumption of validity of a completed sheriffs return of service only by proving that it was impossible for service to have been made.

Prior to this court’s decision in Roper, the standard applied to determine whether a party had sufficiently rebutted the presumption of validity afforded a completed sheriffs return of service was “clear and convincing.” However, this court imposed only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in Roper. 393 So.2d at 88. Since Roper, the party attacking service must only prove that, more likely than not, service was not properly made. Id. Thus, the court of appeal should not have required that Folger show “for certain” that the service was not made, or show that it was impossible for service to have been made. So long as the district court assessing the evidence is satisfied that the party challenging the validity of service has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that service was not properly made, a default judgment may be declared absolutely null under La. Code of Civ. Proc. art. 2002(2). | ¡.¡¿Further, in the absence of manifest error in the district court’s finding on that issue, an appellate court may not reverse.

DECREE

The decision of the court of appeal is reversed, and the district court judgment annulling the default judgment in favor of the Halls and against Folger is reinstated.

COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT ANNULLING DEFAULT JUDGMENT REINSTATED.

KIMBALL and KNOLL, JJ., dissent & assign reasons.

TRAYLOR, J., dissents for reasons assigned by KIMBALL, J.

. Mr. Hall's employer is identified in the Halls’ petition as LVL Trucking Company. However, another company, T.T.C. Illinois, Inc., filed a Petition of Intervention in this suit, seeking to assert its rights under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law. The court of appeal referred to T.T.C. as Mr. Hall’s employer. Further, T.T.C.’s right to intervene in the nullity action was upheld by the court of appeal in Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2000-0668, 0669 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/7/01), 781 So.2d 620.

. La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The sheriff shall endorse on a copy of the citation or other process the date, place, and method of service and sufficient other data to show service in compliance with law. He shall sign and return the copy promptly after the service to the clerk of court who issued it.

. La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1701 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a defendant in the principal or incidental demand fails to answer within the time prescribed by law, judgment by default may be entered against him.

. La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1913 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

C. Notice of the signing of a default judgment against a defendant on whom citation was served personally, or who filed no exceptions or answer, shall be mailed by the clerk of court to the defendant at the address where personal service was obtained or to the last known address of the defendant.

. The appeal of the default judgment was originally stayed by the court of appeal pending final resolution of the nullity action. Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 96-2146 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/97) [unpublished]. The court of appeal later dismissed the appeal as abandoned, but preserved all the issues presented by the appeal of the default judgment for the appeal of the nullity judgment. When the court of appeal entered the judgment being reviewed herein reversing the district court decision .nullifying the default judgment, it gave Folger the opportunity to brief the issues it raised in the appeal of the default judgment. Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2002-0920, p. 20 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/9/03), 843 So.2d 623, 635. Thereafter, the court of appeal affirmed the default judgment. Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2002-0920 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/01/03), 857 So.2d 1234. That judgment is not before this court in this appeal.

. Folger Coffee Co. v. Hall, 97-2472 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/24/98), 715 So.2d 1224.

. Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2001-1899 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/10/01) [unpublished] and Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2001-1901 (La.App. 4th Cir.10/12/01) [unpublished],

. Folger Coffee Co. v. Hall, 2001-2784 (La.10/17/01), 799 So.2d 1140.

. During oral argument before this court, the Halls mentioned the fact that the district court’s reasons for judgment were actually written by Folger, but it did not raise this issue in its brief in this court or in the court of appeal. We note that at least two Louisiana courts of appeal have expressed their belief that courts of appeal should not place any “real value” on reasons for judgment written by one of the parties. See Bell v. Ayio, 97-0534 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/13/98), 731 So.2d 893; State, Dept. of Trans. v. August Christina & Brothers, Inc., 97-244 (La.App. 5th Cir.2/11/98), 716 So.2d 372, writ denied, 1998-3115 (La.2/5/99), 738 So.2d 7. Since the issue has not been raised by the parties to this case, we do not expressly address it herein. However, we note the well-established rule that a district court's failure to issue (any) reasons for judgment is not grounds for reversal of the judgment. See Custom-Bilt Cabinet & Supply, Inc. v. Quality Built Cabinets, Inc., 32, 441 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/8/99), 748 So.2d 594. We also note that the portion of Fol-ger’s brief reproduced by the district court and adopted by the district court as its reasons contains only correct statements of law and conclusions of fact. Accordingly, we find that the manifest error standard applies to both the district court’s fact-supported judgment itself and to the factual determinations implicit in the district court's adoption of that portion of Folger’s post-trial memorandum.

. La.Code of Evid. art. 308.

. La.Code of Evid. art. 302(3).

. La.Code of Evid. art. 304.

. La.Code of Evid. art. 306.

. La.Code of Evid. art. 302(1).

. Supra.

. See La.Code of Evid. art. 302(3).

. See, supra.

. See La.Code of Evid. art. 306.

. See, supra

. See, supra.

. See, supra.

. One of Folger's arguments in support of this assignment of error is that the particular sheriff’s return on service of process at issue in this case is meaningless and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the presumption established by La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1292. In support of this argument, Folger cites testimony of representatives of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office concerning the established routine it used in 1995 for delivering service documents to CT Corporation. Folger would have this court consider that evidence in order to determine whether the presumption of validity afforded completed sheriff's returns of service is even applicable to this case.

Folger’s argument is based on a misapprehension of the purpose of the legally-established presumption of validity afforded completed sheriff's returns of service. The entire purpose of the presumption is to eliminate the need for the sheriff to present evidence concerning the validity of the return. In this case, the sheriff elected to present evidence; however, that fact cannot form the basis for ignoring a legal presumption. Acceptance of such an argument would effectively invalidate the presumption that has been established by Louisiana law for the benefit of the civil law system. Thus, we reject Folger's argument that the presumption should not apply under the facts of this case.

. Folger also presented the testimony of two of its own employees to show that the Halls’ petition in this case was never delivered by CT Corporation to Folger or to Proctor and Gamble. However, the Halls have never asserted that Folger actually received service, only that its agent for service of process received service. Therefore, that testimony is not discussed herein. In fact, we are satisfied that the Halls’ original petition was never actually delivered to Folger or Proctor and Gamble by CT Corporation.

. Deputy Thompson also picked up a similar bundle of service documents directed to the Secretary of State that had been prepared by another deputy every morning, because both CT Corporation and the Secretary of State were on Deputy Thompson's route.

. Deputy Thompson couldn’t remember when the Sheriff’s Office started receiving a copy of the log sheet. In fact, he indicated his belief that CT Corporation had been given an opportunity to receive a copy of the log sheet prior to November 1, 1995, but had declined. However, that testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of Deputy McGee, who indicated that the sheriff's department did not offer that option to CT Corporation until after it started using the new computer system, sometime after November 1, 1995, when it automatically started sending the log sheet.

. Deputy Thompson testified that he could not remember whether CT Corporation was receiving a copy of the log sheet on November 1, 1995.