ALAN RESTAURANT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A DANNY'S RESTAURANT, APPELLANT,
v.
SELMA WALDER AND IRVING WALDER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1981-06-24
No. 81-568
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
399 So. 2d 1128 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1981) Caution
Cited by 14 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.


Holding

Service of process by publication is not authorized for personal injury negligence actions seeking money damages.


Headnotes

[1] Service of process by publication is not authorized in personal injury negligence actions for money damages.

[2] A court order improperly authorizing service by publication does not divest the court of jurisdiction.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs attempted to serve a defendant corporation via publication after personal service failed. The corporation moved to dismiss for lack of juri…

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
DOWNEY, Judge.

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is an appeal by Alan Restaurant Corporation from an order denying its motion to dismiss the personal injury complaint of Mr. and Mrs. Walder. The Walders filed a complaint seeking money damages from the Corporation on the grounds that one of its employees as a result of negligent conduct had inflicted personal injuries on Mrs. Walder. Attempts at gaining jurisdiction over the Corporation by personal service on its resident agent, Alan Gardner, were unsuccessful. On October 6, 1980, the Walders filed a motion asking the circuit court to enter an order allowing for service of process by publication against the Corporation pursuant to Section 49.051, Florida Statutes (1979). On November 7, 1980, the court (Latimer, J.) entered an order granting that motion. Thereafter the Walders made service of process by publication pursuant to Chapter 49, Florida Statutes.

On December 10, 1980, the Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of jurisdiction over the Corporation, and improper service on the Corporation as named. On January 14, 1981, the Walders filed a motion for default.

After holding a hearing on the motion to dismiss and the motion for default the court (King, J.) on February 18, 1981, entered an order denying both motions. The order specified that Judge King would not review Judge Latimer’s order of November 7,1980. This interlocutory appeal followed. We have jurisdiction. Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Corporation contends that the order denying its motion to dismiss should be reversed because service of process by publication is not a proper means of obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant, since Section 49.011 does not authorize service of process by publication in a personal injury negligence action for money damages.

The Walders have not filed a brief to assist us in deciding this appeal.

Section 49.011 authorizes service of process by publication in only twelve types of actions or proceedings.1 Personal injury negligence actions are not included in the foregoing list of actions and therefore ser- vice of process by publication is unauthorized in negligence actions. Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So. 2d 961 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 276 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Jones v. Denmark, 259 So. 2d 198 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).

Nonetheless, dismissal of an action is inappropriate when a plaintiff has made improper use of Chapter 49 in attempting to gain personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, supra; Jones v. Denmark, supra. We therefore affirm the order denying the Corporation’s motion to dismiss. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to the Corporation’s seeking to quash service of process.

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . (1) To enforce any legal or equitable lien or claim to any title or interest in real or personal property within the jurisdiction of the court or any fund held or debt owing by any party on whom process can be served within this state;

(2) To quiet title or remove any encumbrance, lien or cloud on the title to any real or personal property within the jurisdiction of the court or any fund held or debt owing by any party on whom process can be served within this state;

(3) To partition real or personal property within the jurisdiction of the court;

(4) For dissolution or annulment of marriage;

(5) For the construction of any will, deed, contract or other written instrument and for a judicial declaration or enforcement of any legal or equitable right, title, claim, lien or interest thereunder;

ie) To reestablish lost instruments or records which have or should have their situs within the jurisdiction of the court;

(7) In which a writ of replevin, garnishment or attachment has been issued and executed;

(8) In which any other writ or process has been issued and executed which places any property, fund or debt in the custody of a court;

(9) To revive a judgment by motion or scire facias;

(10) For adoption;

(11) Wherein personal service of process or notice is not required by the statutes or constitution of this state or by the Constitution of the United States;

(12) In probate or guardianship proceedings wherein personal service of process or notice is not required by the statutes or Constitution of this state or by the constitution of the United States.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
    …4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Patasnik v. Mermelstein, 379 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Appellees’ third attempt at service was by publication. Service of process by publication is not authorized in negligence actions. . Alan Restaurant Corp. v. Walder, 399 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The purpose of service, substituted or otherwise, is to provide the defendant with notice so that he might exercise his opportunity to be heard. It is clear that none of the attempts at service were performed in a manner likely…
  • Alden Zieman v. Emilio Cosio, 578 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …eases in which service by publication is authorized. Bedford Computer Corp. v. Graphic Press, Inc., 484 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1986); New England Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. Robertson, 506 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Alan Restaurant Corp. v. Walder, 399 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); cf. Estate of Bobinger v. Deltona Corp., 563 So. 2d 739, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Moreover, “constructive service confers only in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction upon the court.” Bedford, 484 So. 2d at 1227. Here, Cosio sought a…
  • Huguenor v. Huguenor, 420 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
    …nc., 372 So. 2d 98 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The action here is one for money damages based on the tort of conversion. It is simply not the type of action where service of process may be obtained by publication. See, e.g., Alan Restaurant Corp. v. Walder, 399 So. 2d 1128 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So. 2d 961 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Ressler v. Sena, 307 So. 2d 457 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Appellee contends that because Winifred committed the tort while acting as the personal representative of Lloyd, Jr.’s esta…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw