In Wagner v. Truesdell, 1998 SD 9, 574 N.W.2d 627, 629, the Court adopted the substantial compliance doctrine stating, "actual notice coupled with substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy personal service of process requirements[.]" The Court defined substantial compliance as follows: "Substantial compliance" with a statute means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. It means that a court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted. Substantial compliance with a statute is not shown unless it is made to appear that the purpose of the statute is shown to have been served. What constitutes substantial compliance with a statute is a matter depending on the facts of each particular case. State v. Bunnell, 324 N.W.2d 418, 420 (SD 1982) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Larson v. Hazeltine, 1996 SD 100, 552 N.W.2d 830, 835, Rans v. State, 390 N.W.2d 64 (SD 1986). Id.