I know (not as a lawyer, just as a reasonably knowledgeable layperson) that in New York state at least, there is ostensibly no time limit on vacating a judgment based on no service. But the burden on proof is on the defendant to prove that no service was made (the hearing is called a “traverse hearing”)
This makes sense because the plaintiff has already theoretically met the burden of proof by submitting affidavits stating under oat that he has served the defendant properly, so the burden shifts to the defendant to prove why this isn’t actually so.
At that point, my wild-assed guess is that if the defendant can overcome this burden of proof, there’s not really a laches-type argument to be made. Perhaps defendant acts in bad faith in waiting so long but plaintiff has also acted in bad faith in either perjuring himself or at very least in having made very poor attempt at service.
That was the point that interested me. Burden of proof can be difficult. In a case like this, it would be the defendant testifying he was not issued the papers and a crooked process server testifying that he gave the papers to the defendant with no third-party evidence. If the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove he wasn’t served, then he’s not going to be able to meet that standard.
And at that point, he’s probably lost the entire case. The judge already issued a decision at the initial hearing when the defendant failed to appear. The defendant can’t present any of the other arguments he might have presented at that hearing.
Public notice in the newspapers are how the Federal governmnet announces seizures (similar to foreclosure, but for violations of the law). Last I knew, announcements were made in the WSJ, and one or two other papers (at least in this part of the country).
As a magistrate, I hold hearings from time to time when people have already had default judgments entered against them but later show up to allege they weren’t served. Usually plaintiff can show she did everything required by the law, and that the address to which notice was sent was actually defendant’s, and that’s that. In the interests of justice, I will sometimes vacate an earlier decision and simply set the case for trial, where I believe the defendant’s testimony and am convinced that he wasn’t dodging the process server. More often than not the plaintiff will end up getting her judgment anyway.
GiantRat, I worked on asset forfeitures quite a bit during a summer internship with my local U.S. Attorney’s office. It’s funny, all the cases name the property itself as defendant, so you see reported cases like United States v. $24,540.03 in Cash, a Cellphone and a Pager and United States v. One 2007 Cadillac Escalade.