AVENTURA BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROCHELLE BLAUSTEIN, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2008-12-17
No. 3D08-525
Before COPE, RAMIREZ, and LAGOA, JJ.
997 So. 2d 1185 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's finding that a condominium association's registered agent was properly served with process, rejecting the association's argument that it lacked jurisdiction. The court also clarified that the association could pursue an alternative motion to set aside the default under Rule 1.500(d) rather than Rule 1.540(b).


Holding

The trial court's factual determination that the registered agent was properly served is supported by competent substantial evidence and is affirmed. Additionally, the court clarified that a motion to set aside a default proceeds under Rule 1.500(d), not Rule 1.540(b), as the Final Default Judgment as to Liability is an interlocutory order that can be revisited prior to final judgment.


Headnotes

[1] An order determining jurisdiction of the person is an appealable nonfinal order.

[2] A trial court's factual determination regarding service of process, supported by competent substantial evidence, will be affirmed on appeal.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The trial court's factual determination is supported by competent substantial evidence.”

Establishes the standard of review for the trial court's finding that the registered agent was properly served.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Aventura Beach Club Condominium Association was sued by Rochelle Blaustein. The association claimed it was never served with process and thus the tria…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We treat the instant appeal as being an appeal of a nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i); Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Inc., 824 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The defendant-appellant condominium association contended that the plaintiff-appellee had never served the association with process and thus never acquired jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff argued that the registered agent was properly served.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of the process server, whom the trial court found to be credible. The trial court concluded that the registered agent had been served with process. The trial court’s factual determination is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Emmer v. Brucato, 813 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Latin Am. Cafeteria, Inc. v. Zales Meats Distribs., Inc., 921 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order which determined that the registered agent had been properly served.

We note that in the proceedings below, the association filed an addendum to its motion to set aside the default. The addendum appears to make an alternative argument that the default should be set aside on other grounds, even if the agent was properly served. It does not appear that the trial court has ruled on that claim. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the association to seek a ruling on the issue it has raised in its addendum and to amend the addendum if necessary. See generally Hialeah, Inc. v. Adams, 566 So. 2d 350, 350-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1105-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Because there may be further proceedings on the default issue, we point out that a motion to set aside a default proceeds under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(d). There has been some confusion in this case because after the default was entered (and before the association became aware of the case), the plaintiff (based on the default) obtained entry of a Final Default Judgment as to Liability. Because the order stated that it was a final judgment on liability, the parties concluded that the association’s only available remedy was a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). That is not correct. By its terms, Rule 1.540 applies to final judgments. Id.; Nolan’s Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The Final Default Judgment as to Liability is merely an interlocutory order entering a default, and can be revisited by the trial court at any time prior to final judgment.

For the stated reasons, we affirm the order now before us, which concluded that the registered agent had been served with process. This ruling is without prejudice to the association to pursue its alternative request to set aside the default.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • De Armand L. Hull v. The Lending House, Inc., 19 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
    …l appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate a default. We treat this as an appeal from a non-final order determining jurisdiction of the person, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i); Aventura Beach Club Condo. Ass’n v. Blaustein, 997 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Inc., 824 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and affirm. There is record evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that substitute service on defendant Hull was appropriate. §§ 49.021, .031,…
  • Benzrent 1 v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, 273 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw