In this appeal, Joseph L. Williams challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Shaun C. Bragg in Williams’s action stemming from a vehicular collision. The primary issue in this case is whether service, accomplished after the expiration of the statute of limitation, related back to the time of filing the complaint. The trial court concluded that it did not. We agree and affirm. The collision in issue occurred on April 15, 1998. According to Williams’s attorney, before initially filing the complaint in the State Court of Chatham County on April 13, 2000, she “verified” Bragg’s address “with the Bloomingdale Police Department/Recorder’s Court,” which informed her that Bragg resided in Chatham County. On May 10, 2000, when she had not received the sheriff’s return of service, she telephoned the state court and learned that service had not been accomplished. She telephoned the Chatham County Sheriff’s Department and learned that Bragg’s address was “on the Chatham/Effingham county line and that Chatham County did not service his area.” She then mailed the complaint and summons to the Effingham County Sheriff’s Department for service. When that sheriff’s department had not served Bragg by May 16, 2000, she retained a private process server, who served Bragg on May 21, 2000.
Williams contends the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in failing to find that he was reasonably diligent. He points out correctly that when the statute of limitation expires between the date of filing and the date of service, whether that service relates back is dependent upon the length of time and the diligence of the plaintiff. Wade v. Whalen , 232 Ga. App. 765 1 504 SE2d 456 1998. The correct test must be whether the plaintiff showed that he acted in a reasonable and diligent manner in attempting to insure that a proper service was made as quickly as possible. A reasonable rule must be that in such case the trial judge should look at all the facts involved and ascertain whether the plaintiff was in any way guilty of laches. . . . The plaintiff has the burden of showing lack of fault. Citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted. Id. Determining whether this burden has been met is in the trial court’s discretion, and the trial court’s finding will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Mann v. Atlanta Cas. Co. , 215 Ga. App. 747, 749 452 SE2d 130 1994.
