On February 29, 2008, Yaw Akuoko filed a complaint against Debra Martin seeking to recover for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident that occurred on March 6, 2006. Martin was not served with the complaint until March 19, 2008, and she subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, to dismiss, based in part upon Akuoko’s failure to serve her within the applicable statute of limitation.1 The trial court granted Martin’s motion, finding that the late service constituted laches on the part of Akuoko, and this appeal followed. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion. 1. When a complaint is filed within the statute of limitation, but service is not made within five days or within the period of limitation, the plaintiff must establish that service was made in a reasonable and diligent manner in an attempt to ensure that proper service is made as quickly as possible. Once the plaintiff becomes aware of a problem with service, however, his duty is elevated to an even higher duty of the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service.2 “The trial court has discretion to determine whether a plaintiff has exercised sufficient diligence to effect service after the running of the statute of limitation, and we will not disturb the court’s decision absent an abuse of that discretion.”3
Here, Akuoko filed her complaint on February 29, 2008, and the statute of limitation expired no later than March 6, 2008.4 Martin was served on March 19, 2008, 13 days after the statute of limitation expired. In opposing Martin’s motion, Akuoko relied upon her affidavit averring that after she paid the sheriff’s department to serve Martin and provided them with what ultimately proved to be Martin’s correct address, she and her attorney called the sheriff’s department “repeatedly to inquire about the status of the service, and they were told on at least three occasions that no one at Debra Martin’s residence had answered the door; and that the sheriff’s department . . . would keep trying.” The trial court found that Akuoko’s affidavit was insufficient to prove that she acted diligently in obtaining service because she failed to specify therein when she first became aware of the sheriff’s initial unsuccessful attempt to serve Martin, or when or how many times she contacted the sheriff’s department thereafter. Thus, the trial court found that Akuoko was guilty of laches in failing to exercise due diligence to effect service in a timely manner.
