Short answer. No, not under the presumptive-notice rule. Mailed notice is presumed adequate only if it was sent at least twenty calendar days ahead for addressees within the same judicial region, or at least thirty calendar days ahead for those outside it. Three weeks, or about twenty-one days, falls short of the thirty-day threshold that applies to you.
What the law says
There shall be presumptive notice to a party of a court setting if such notice appears on the records to have been mailed at least twenty calendar days prior to the scheduled date of hearing and if the addressee is from within the same judicial region of the court where the case is pending, or at least thirty calendar days if the addressee is from outside the judicial region.
Rule 13, Section 10 — Presumptive service. Read the full provision →
The presumptive-notice rule
Rule 13, Section 10 creates a rule of presumptive notice: a party is presumed to have received adequate notice of a court setting if the records show the notice was mailed within a set window before the hearing date. The rule fixes two different windows depending on where the addressee is located relative to the court, rather than applying one flat deadline to every recipient regardless of distance.
Why location changes the deadline
For an addressee within the same judicial region as the court where the case is pending, the notice must appear to have been mailed at least twenty calendar days before the scheduled hearing. For an addressee from outside the judicial region, the required lead time is longer: at least thirty calendar days before the hearing. The longer window for outside-region addressees reflects that mail simply takes longer to reach, and to be returned as proof, across a greater distance.
Doing the math on three weeks
Since you live outside the court's judicial region, the thirty-day window is the one that applies to you, not the twenty-day window for addressees within the region. Three weeks works out to roughly twenty-one days, which clears the twenty-day threshold that would apply to someone in-region but falls short of the thirty-day threshold the rule sets for someone outside it. On the article's own terms, mailing only three weeks ahead does not meet the standard for presumptive notice in your situation.
What 'presumptive' notice means, and doesn't mean
It is worth being precise about what this rule does: it sets when notice is presumed adequate based on the mailing date shown on the record, not an absolute rule that notice sent earlier is automatically valid or that notice sent later is automatically void for every purpose. Falling short of the presumptive window means the mailing date alone does not establish that you were properly notified, which is a distinct question from what remedy, if any, follows from that gap in a particular case.