Gaeth v. Deacon

2009 ME 9 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009

Facts

Daniel Deacon assaulted William Gaeth on October 6, 2002, in Waterville, Maine, while both were students at Colby College. Deacon, after consuming excessive alcohol, struck Gaeth in the face with his fist, fracturing his nose. Gaeth incurred significant medical bills and other damages as a result. Gaeth's attorney sent a letter to Deacon in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in April 2004, which Deacon received and responded to. Gaeth then filed a complaint in Lincoln County, Maine, and attempted to serve Deacon at his Cambridge address, but a sheriff was unsuccessful in gaining entry to the apartment building. Gaeth subsequently moved for service by publication.

Procedural history

William Gaeth filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Lincoln County. The court granted Gaeth's motion for service by publication, and a default judgment was subsequently entered against Daniel Deacon. After a damages hearing, the court awarded Gaeth $100,000. Deacon later filed a motion for relief from judgment in the Superior Court, which was denied. Deacon then appealed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment to this court.

Issue

Did service by publication in the Lincoln County News, despite technical compliance with state venue and service rules, satisfy Daniel Deacon's constitutional right to due process by being reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the lawsuit?

Holding

No, the service by publication was not reasonably calculated to give Deacon notice and therefore did not comport with his constitutional right to due process. The court vacated the default judgment.

Rule

Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to give actual notice of a pending action and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Service of process must be effected in a manner most reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant in fact of the proceeding. Notice by publication is a last resort, appropriate only when other means more likely to achieve notice have been exhausted and the defendant's identity and location are not reasonably ascertainable. Technical compliance with service rules does not automatically satisfy due process if the method is not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-08-30. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.