JOSEPH G. STOKES, APPELLANT,
v.
LLOYD BELL, JR., APPELLEE
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.
A Florida tax collector sued a taxpayer for back taxes on Okaloosa County property. The taxpayer, a Bahamas resident with temporary residence in Miami Beach, was served process while attending court in Okaloosa County for an unrelated matter. The court affirmed dismissal based on the Adams doctrine granting immunity from service to persons attending court outside their home county, but certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the tension between this common law rule and the statewide service of process statute.
The court affirmed the trial judge's grant of the motion to abate, assuming the Adams doctrine remains valid law and was correctly applied. However, the court expressed difficulty in reconciling the Adams immunity rule with the statewide service of process statute.
[1] A person attending court outside their county of residence in Florida may be exempt from service of process, even if they are a Florida resident.
[2] Florida Statutes section 48.011 permits statewide service of process in civil actions.
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“a person in attendance in court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the county of his residence is immune from service of process while in court and for a reasonable period of time following the court appearance in order to return to his home county”
Describes the Adams doctrine immunity rule that the court applied to affirm dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Stokes, a tax collector, sued Lloyd Bell, Jr., for unpaid taxes on Okaloosa County lots for 1975-1979. Bell's permanent residence and principal…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Judge.
Appellant tax collector sued the appellee taxpayer for 1975-1979 taxes owed on Oka-loosa County lots owned by the appellee. Service of process was effected while the appellee was in the courthouse in Okaloosa County, Florida, for an unrelated civil suit. Appellee filed a motion to abate for lack of personal jurisdiction, alleging that his permanent residence and principal place of business was in the Bahamas, but that he had a temporary residence in Miami Beach where his wife and children reside. The trial judge granted the motion to abate on the authority of State ex rel. Cox v. Adams, 148 Fla. 426, 4 So. 2d 457 (1941).
Process in civil actions is governed by section 48.011, Florida Statutes (1981), which facially indicates that service of process runs throughout the State of Florida.1 Adams, on the other hand, says that a person in attendance in court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the county of his residence is immune from service of process while in court and for a reasonable period of time following the court appearance in order to return to his home county. We cannot find that the Supreme Court has receded from Adams, so we assume it is still good law, interpreted correctly by the trial judge in this case. We accordingly affirm. We find difficulty, however, in reconciling Adams with the statute, particularly where, as here, there is no suggestion that the tax collector acted in bad faith by luring or compelling Bell to enter Okaloosa County for service of process. We therefore certify the following question to the Supreme Court as being of great public importance:2
SINCE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A FLORIDA RESIDENT NORMALLY MAY BE EFFECTED STATEWIDE, IS THERE AN UNDERLYING POLICY REASON TO EXEMPT FLORIDA RESIDENTS FROM SERVICE WHEN ATTENDING COURT OUTSIDE THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE IN THE SAME MANNER AS NONRESIDENTS OF THE STATE ARE EXEMPTED WHEN ATTENDING COURT WITHIN THE STATE?
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . 48.011 Process; how directed. — Summons, subpoenas and other process in civil actions run throughout the state. All process except subpoenas shall be directed to all and singular the sheriffs of the state.
. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1983)…IS THERE AN UNDERLYING POLICY REASON TO EXEMPT FLORIDA RESIDENTS FROM SERVICE WHEN ATTENDING COURT OUTSIDE THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE IN THE SAME MANNER AS NONRESIDENTS OF THE STATE ARE EXEMPTED WHEN ATTENDING COURT WITHIN THE STATE? Stokes v. Bell, 424 So. 2d 949, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we answer the question in the affirmative. Stokes, the tax collector for Okaloosa County, sued Bell for nonpayment of real estate taxes…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. William R. Cox v. Hal W. Adams, 148 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1941)