JONATHAN TORNER, ET AL.
v.
IDEAL CREDIT UNION
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.
In this per curiam affirmance, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision, holding that a party waives the defense of insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, or lack of personal jurisdiction if not asserted either in a motion before filing a responsive pleading or in the responsive pleading itself.
A party waives all defenses and objections, including insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, and lack of jurisdiction over the person, if the party does not present them either by motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b) or, if no motion is made, in a responsive pleading.
[1] A defense of insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, or lack of jurisdiction over the person must be asserted either in the responsive pleading to…
[2] A party waives all defenses and objections that the party does not present either by motion or in a responsive pleading.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a party "waives all defenses and objections that the party does not present either by motion under subdivision (b). . . or, if the party has made no motion, in a responsive pleading. . . ."”
Establishes the primary rule that jurisdictional defenses must be raised by motion or in responsive pleading to avoid waiver
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed factual background, presenting only a per curiam affirmance with citations to controlling procedural law and pre…
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 Insufficiency Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b) (providing that the defense of insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, or lack of jurisdiction over the person must be asserted either in the responsive pleading to a claim or by motion before the responsive pleading is filed); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(h)(1) (providing that, subject to exceptions inapplicable here, a party "waives all defenses and objections that the party does not present either by motion under subdivision (b). . . or, if the party has made no motion, in a responsive pleading. . . .” ); Vulcan Equities, LLC v. Yarbrough, 332 So. 3d 544, 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reversing the trial court's order dismissing action for lack of personal jurisdiction “because, by serving a responsive pleading without raising the defense of lack of service of process, [defendant] waived the defense and could not raise it in his subsequently filed motion to dismiss."); Dolan v. Dolan, 81 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing trial court's order dismissing petition for improper service of process because respondent waived the defense when she failed to raise it in her motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); Berne v. Beznos, 819 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that pleading to the merits without raising objection to service of process or lack of personal jurisdiction waives those defenses); Parra v. Raskin, 647 So. 2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (noting that the failure to raise the defense of insufficient service of process at the inception of a case, in either a motion or responsive pleading, constitutes a waiver of that defense).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J.H. v. State, 819 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Parra v. Raskin, 647 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Dolan v. Dolan, 81 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)