insufficient to establish effective service of process. The court’s conclusion is an unwarranted upheaval of settled agency law. The district court correctly found “nothing in the record” to support Graham’s actual authority as an agent to receive service of process for the individual defendants. Accordingly, I conclude that service of process was ineffectual-.. 1 . Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (2014) 2 . Offutt, however, never mailed "a hard . copy” of the process papers to Graham. 3 . See, e.g., In re J.M.T., 759 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.2009) (“First-class mail, even if received, is simply not personal service. Personal service requires delivery to the party or to an appropriate representative.” (citing Minn. R. Civ. P, 4,03)); Kmart Corp. v. Cty. of Clay, 711 N.W.2d 485, 489-90, (Minn.2006) (<HOLDING>); Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d
holding that service was ineffectualbecause the plaintiff did not deliver copies of the petition to the individual personally or leave copies with any person at the individuals usual places of abode and because the plaintiffs alternative attempt to serve by facsimile was not authorized by rule 4 holding that the plaintiff did not complete service when she made no attempt to serve the defendant within the time required by the arkansas procedural rules holding that one of the twelve or so homes throughout the world among which the individual defendant divided his time constitutes a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purposes of service of process even though that home is not the defendants principal domicile and even though he may spend comparatively little time there holding that service was proper where a copy of the summons and complaint was left with the defendants wife at the defendants maryland house in which the defendant had lived before moving ahead of his family to arizona where he had purchased a house intending never to return to maryland and to move his family to arizona noting that the service was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of service at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode where the service succeeded in actually apprising him of the lawsuit holding that the plaintiffs did not complete service for purposes of the savings statute when they served the defendant with a complaint signed by an unlicensed attorney a nullity under arkansas law and made no attempt to serve the defendant with the amended complaint