GORDON D. BLACKMON, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA SONDRA BLACKMON, 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.
The court held that service of process on a non-resident defendant through the secretary of state, based solely on ownership of real property in Florida, is invalid if not accompanied by personal service.
[1] Service of process on a non-resident defendant under Florida's long-arm statute, based on ownership of real property within the state, must be made by personal service on…
[2] Service of process through the secretary of state is not authorized for non-resident defendants based solely on the ownership of real property within Florida.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff attempted to serve a non-resident defendant through the secretary of state based on ownership of Florida real property. The defendant moved …
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 On Secretary Of State cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On the ground that the defendant-appellant Blackmon, a resident of California, was not properly served with process, we reverse the order below denying his motion to set aside a default entered against him. Of the several attempts at service of process asserted by the plaintiff below, the only even arguably valid one1 was effected through the secretary of state based upon the grant of long-arm jurisdiction contained in section 48.193(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985); that is, that the action arose out of Blackmon’s “[ojwning ... real property within this state.” Section 48.193(3), however, provides that service under section 48.193(1) may be made only by personal service on the non-resident defendant pursuant to section 48.194. Nettles v. White, 439 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see Damoth v. Reinitz, 485 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (noting that service deemed proper pursuant to section 48.193(l)(c) was made personally under section 48.194). This did not occur here. The appellee’s invocation of section 48.193(5)2 to save the service is plainly unavailing because there is no other statutory provision which authorizes service on the secretary of state on the basis of the mere ownership of realty, which is exclusively provided by section 48.193(l)(c).3
For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over the appellant, and the order under review is therefore reversed with directions to vacate the default.
Reversed.
. The other alleged grounds of jurisdiction may be summarily rejected without discussion.
. § 48.193(5) provides:
Nothing contained in this section limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereinafter provided by law.
. Compare, for example, the "doing business" basis of long-arm jurisdiction contained in § 48.193(l)(a), as to which service through the secretary of state is also authorized by § 48.181. See American Motors Corp. v. Abrahantes, 474 So. 2d 271, 272 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Atl. Transp. Co. v. Offshore Tugs, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 823 (M.D. Fla. 1990)…n pursuant to § 48.193(1) or (2) is only available if defendants are personally served with process. See Fla.Stat. § 48.193(3) (persons subject to jurisdiction pursuant to § 48.193 may [shall] be personally served); Blackmon v. Blackmon, 487 So.2d 1131, 1131 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (“service under section 48.193(1) may be made only by personal service”); Nettles v. White, 439 So.2d 1048, 1049 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (“personal service of process must be perfected upon nonresidents subject to F…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Motors Corp. & Jeep Corp. v. Abrahantes, 474 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Nettles v. Corkleigh E. White, 439 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Damoth v. Reinitz, 485 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)