FRANK F. RUMELI, LENORA T. SIMMS, J. W. DUKES AND L. WALTER DUKES, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a foreclosure decree against Frank F. Rumeli due to defective constructive service of process, holding that the affidavit supporting service lacked the signature and seal of an authorized officer, making it legally insufficient.
The constructive service was defective and invalid. An affidavit supporting constructive service must contain the signature and seal of an officer authorized by law to take affidavits. The absence of necessary parties defendant cannot be overlooked and requires reversal of the decree.
“There appears, therefore, on the face of the foregoing an utter lack of an essential feature of an affidavit, vis: an officer authorized by law to take affidavits”
Establishes that the affidavit was defective because it lacked authentication by a proper officer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa filed a bill to foreclose its tax lien on real property owned or claimed by the appellants. Lenora T. Simms and the Dukes were perso…
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 Affidavit Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The City of Tampa filed a bill to foreclose its tax lien upon certain realty, whereof it is alleged the appellants are the owners or have, or claim to have some interests, the nature of which is unknown but inferior to the tax lien, and prayed for relief and process against them all. Lenora T. Simms and the Dukes were served personally and appeared, and it was sought to get Rumeli in by constructive service. As the sole basis for the attempted service we find in the record the following: “State of Florida, County of Hillsborough.
I hereby certify that before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared John P. Wall, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the solicitor for the City of Tampa, the complainant in the foregoing cause, and that the residence of the said Frank F. Rumeli, one of the defendants in the above named cause, is unknown to the complainant or its attorney or any of its officers, and that the said Frank F. Rumeli, according to the best of his information and belief, is over the age of twenty-one years, and that there is no person in the State of Florida the service of a subpoena upon whom would bind the said defendant. John P. Wall.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this-day of August, A. D. 1903.” There appears, therefore, on the face of the foregoing an utter lack of an essential feature of an affidavit, vis: an officer authorized by law to take affidavits, nor is there any offer aliunde the paper itself to prove that any such officer actually took the jurat and neglected to affix his signature or seal; nor does the clerk of the court in any part of the record assert by certificate or otherwise that he took the acknowledgment. Without deciding how far such proof might be admissible, we must reverse the decree on the showing before us. Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65, 16 South. Rep. 781. The absence of necessary parties in the court below may be noticed in this court, irrespective of who may assign the error. Mote v. Morton, 46 Fla. 478, 35 South. Rep.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1905)…. 880 ; Rawls v. Tallahassee Hotel Co., 43 Fla. 288, 31 South. Rep. 237; Scott v. Jenkins, 46 Fla. 518, 35 South. Rep. 101; Steere v. Tention, 46 Fla. 510, 35 South. Rep. 106; Mote v. Morton, 46 Fla. 478; 35 South. Rep. 656; Rumeli v. City of Tampa, 48 Fla. 112, 37 South. Rep. 563; Camp Phosphate Company v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 South. Rep. 722. [*521] The petitions for rehearing are denied. Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ. concur. Taylor and Parkhill, JJ. concur in the opinion. Hocker, J. disqualified.…
-
Fuller v. Frances Louise Burruss and husband, 102 Fla. 1145 (Fla. 1931)…of the cause to the Circuit Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to proceed even in cases where it originally obtained none over the person of indispensable parties. Wylly vs. Sanford Loan & Trust Co., 44 Fla. 818, 33 Sou. 453; Rumeli vs. Tampa, 48 Fla. 112; 37 Sou. 563. We perceive no reason why the same rule should not apply in a case originating before a County Judge in the exercise of his probate jurisdiction, in which that Court admittedly obtained proper jurisdiction over the persons of all the p…
-
Leonora T. Simms v. The City of Tampa, 52 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1906)
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
- King Wylly and Louise Wylly v. The Sanford Loan & Tr. Co., 44 Fla. 818 (Fla. 1902)
- Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1895)
- Mote v. Sallie Sims Morton and Her Husband, 46 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1903)