MORALES LAW GROUP, P.A.

v.

TRES RODMAN

FERNANDEZ, J.

Defendant Morales Law Group, P.A. (“Morales Law”) appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment, as well as the court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss, claiming that service was improper.

We affirm the trial court’s Final Judgment, as well as the Order on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss, because the service of process was valid on its face, and Morales Law failed to present clear and convincing evidence that service was defective. Plaintiff Tres Rodman filed suit against Morales Law in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in November 2015. Thereafter, Morales Law was formally served with a summons and complaint in Rodman’s action. The process server effectuated service by providing the documents to an employee of Morales Law, who was sitting at the law firm’s front desk when she was served. Morales Law failed to respond to Rodman’s complaint, so the trial court entered an order of default against Morales Law. After a jury trial, where the jury awarded Rodman $50,000.00 in damages, the trial court entered Final Judgment for Rodman for $50,000.00, plus statutory interest. Approximately nine months later, Morales Law filed a Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss alleging, in part, that service was not properly effected on its employee.

At the hearing before the trial court, Morales Law presented no evidence, and relied solely on argument of its counsel. Thereafter, the trial court denied Morales Law’s motion to quash service and dismiss. This appeal followed.

The party invoking the court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving proper service of process. Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). “If the return [of service] is regular on its face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.; see also Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385, 389 (Fla. 2015).

Moreover, “a defendant may not impeach the validity of the summons with a simple denial of service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his denial.” Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Evidence must be submitted that corroborates the defendant’s denial of service. Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In the present case, the trial court found that the verified return of service was regular on its face.

Therefore, the burden then shifted to Morales Law to show that service was defective. Coutts v. Sabadell United Bank, N.A., 199 So. 3d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Morales Law did not proffer any evidence at the hearing, either by affidavit, sworn testimony, documents, or other competent evidence, to counter the valid service on its employee.

Moreover, Morales Law’s counsel’s unsworn argument is not evidence and does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence that service was not validly executed. Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Telf Corp., 671

So. 2d at 819; Slomowitz, 429 So. 2d at 799. Because Morales Law did not submit any evidence challenging the facts contained in the return of service, the law firm did not meet its burden. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Morale Law’s motion, and we affirm that denial, as well as the final judgment entered below. Affirmed.