RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID O. HUFF AND GAYLE HUFF, APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed trial court's denial of motion to quash service of process where defendant had actual notice of the proceeding but failed to challenge service for nearly a year, demonstrating lack of diligence.
A defendant who receives actual notice of litigation but fails to timely challenge service of process waives the right to contest the validity of service.
[1] A defendant who receives actual notice of litigation but fails to timely challenge service of process waives objections to the validity of service based on lack of dilige…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRanger Construction Industries was served with a summons and complaint on October 30, 1984, and the document was maintained in its claims/litigation f…
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 Lack Of Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ranger Construction Industries (“Ranger”) appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to quash service of process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
We are persuaded that under the circumstances of this case, Ranger’s lack of diligence in moving to set aside the default warrants affirmance. The trial court found that the claims/litigation file maintained by Ranger in the ordinary course of business contained the summons and complaint that was served upon the defendant on October 30, 1984, yet Ranger failed to move to set aside final judgment and quash service of process until October 18, 1985, almost a year later. We previously have indicated that we cannot countenance a challenge to service of process where the record reflects that the defendant had notice of a proceeding against him, but that he saw fit to “simply ignore the process, sit idly by, letting default be entered against it, a jury trial initiated and final judgment entered.” Craven v. J.M. Fields, 226 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Our conclusion above makes it unnecessary for us to address the issue of the validity of service in this case.
AFFIRMED. LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion, but I would also hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in determining that proper service of process was demonstrated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…efendant unduly delays in objecting to defective service, permitting a default and final default judgment to be entered, a court may deny defendant’s motion to vacate for failure to timely object. Accord Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. v. Huff, 499 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA [*52] 1986), rev. denied, 509 So. 2d 1118 (Fia. 1987); Craven v. J.M. Fields, Inc., 226 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Defendant is required to demonstrate excusable neglect, the existence of a meritorious defense and a showing of due…
-
Garvin v. S.C. Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…er period measured by a standard of reasonableness. Cf. Fischer v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, 511 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (five week delay in communicating with counsel not due diligence); see Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. v. Huff, 499 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (lapse of slightly less than one year from service to filing of motion to vacate default; no due diligence shown). We have been quick to note the extraordinary circumstance disclosing the apparent absence of liability in Garvin.…
-
Ares v. Corporacion de Euro Comercio Exterior Sociedad Anonima, 506 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Chillingworth, 126 Fla. 645, 171 So. 649 (1937); Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., v. Huff, 499 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Craven v. J. M. Fields, Inc., 226 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)