In from the Cold

When Luther and Ida Aguchak failed to make payments on their new snowmobile and freezer, Montgomery Ward went into small-claims court in Anchorage, Alaska. A summons was issued and mailed to the Aguchaks, who live in a remote Eskimo village 500 miles away. Though they received the notice, the Aguchaks had neither the time nor money to make the $186 overnight air trip that was necessary to get to court. When they failed to appear to answer the summons, a default judgment was entered against them, and that seemed to be that.

Not quite. On the advice of a Legal Services lawyer, the Aguchaks sued, arguing that the action by Montgomery Ward violated the due-process clause of the state's constitution. Last month the Alaska Supreme Court agreed. Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that due process must be "appropriate to the nature of the case," the Alaska justices unanimously concluded that the outlying areas of their state presented special problems. Indigent rural defendants, they said, not only would find answering a summons difficult, but few of them would be near enough to a lawyer to get advice in time for a summons deadline. Thus the court ruled that the standard summons form must now tell the defendant of his right to request a change of venue to a court near him and of his right to send in his side of the story in writing if he prefers.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.