WILLIAM E. BURTCHAELL A/K/A WILLIAM E. BURCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN T. HOFFMAN F/K/A LAURA LYNN THOMAS, 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.
Burtchaell appeals a Florida judgment enforcing a Georgia default judgment, arguing the Georgia court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process. The court reversed, holding that service on an occasional girlfriend visitor at his apartment did not satisfy Georgia's substitute service statute requiring the person served to be a resident of the party's dwelling.
Service on an occasional visitor does not qualify as a resident under Georgia's substitute service statute, and therefore the service was defective and void. The Georgia judgment was entered without proper personal jurisdiction and is unenforceable.
[1] A judgment is void and unenforceable if the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process.
[2] Substitute service of process under Georgia law requires leaving copies at a party's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion t…
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“We do not think an occasional visitor qualifies under the Georgia statute as a resident for purposes of substitute personal service of process.”
The court's core holding that the service was defective because the person served did not reside at the defendant's dwelling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Georgia deputy served process on Pat DiVella, Burtchaell's girlfriend, at his usual place of abode in Georgia while he was a resident there. DiVella…
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 Substitute Service cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Burtchaell appeals from a Florida judgment enforcing a Georgia judgment. He defended the enforcement suit on the ground1 that the judgment was void because the Georgia court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process.2 We agree and reverse.
The return of service indicates that a Georgia deputy served process on Pat DiV-ella, a girlfriend, at BurtchaelPs usual place of abode in Georgia, while he was a resident in that state. She did not recall being served, and she never told Burtchaell about being served or handed some papers. Burtchaell never learned of the suit until enforcement of the Georgia default judgment was sought in Florida some years later. The relevant portion of the Georgia statute providing for substitute service of process, 9 — 11—4(d)(7), permits personal service “by leaving copies thereof at [a party’s] dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein....” (Emphasis added).3 However, the record in this case establishes that Pat DiVella was not residing at Burtchaell's apartment at the time she was served on his behalf. Instead, her testimony revealed she held a job in St. Petersburg, Florida, and was then residing with her sister in that state. She was dating Burtchaell and during a nineteen month period, she would visit him, staying a few days at a time and at most a week.
We do not think an occasional visitor qualifies under the Georgia statute as a resident for purposes of substitute personal service of process.4 Georgia appellate courts have upheld service on friends or relatives not residing at a party’s residence where the evidence showed the person served actually gave the papers to the proper party. Sanders v. Johnson, 181 Ga.App. 39, 351 S.E. 2d 216 (1986); Brim v. Pruitt, 178 Ga.App. 321, 342 S.E. 2d 690 (1986). However, in the instant case there is no evidence indicating appellant actually received the service papers from Pat DiVel-la.5
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . Burtchaell challenged the Georgia judgment on other grounds also, but we do not reach them because of our conclusion that the judgment is fundamentally flawed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
. Trauger v. A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co., Inc., 442 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983).
.This is similar to Florida’s statute which provides for service "by leaving the copies at his usual place of abode with any person residing therein ...” § 48.031(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. Georgia courts have invalidated service on a maid, Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75, 205 S.E. 2d 267 (1974); as well as a babysitter, Mahone v. Marshall Furniture Co., 142 Ga.App. 242, 235 S.E. 2d 672 (1977); cf. Williams v. Mells, 138 Ga.App. 60, 225 S.E. 2d 501 (1976) whereby Georgia appellate court upheld service upon an "adult boarder.”
. In the context of giving Full Faith and Credit to an out of state judgment (U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 1), the proper test for the validity of the foreign judgment is compliance with the rendering state’s statutes and case law regarding personal service and due process. See Einhorn v. Home State Savings Ass’n, 256 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Milligan v. Wilson, 107 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) and cases cited therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lieberman v. Int'l Collection Corp., 588 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1950); Burtchaell v. Hoffman, 508 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See generally Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Inc., 87 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1956) (foreign court’s service requirements comply with due process notions); Hecht Rubber Corp. v. Meckler, 208 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA) (record supports…
-
Ordie W. Campbell v. Se. Mall, 655 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…tilizing New Jersey law, the trial court should determine whether Campbell received pi’oper substitute service. See § 55.503(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); cf. Burtchaell v. Hoffman, 508 So. 2d 738, 738-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Trauger v. A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co., Inc., 442 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
- Milligan v. Wilson, 107 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Einhorn v. Home State Sav. Ass'n, 256 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)