SCOTT HANNA, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK RICHARD MILLBYER, ET AL., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of motion to quash substituted service because plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence or defendant's concealment and did not comply with mandatory procedural requirements for service under Florida statute.
Substituted service of process on a defendant through the secretary of state is improper when the plaintiff fails to establish due diligence in attempting personal service and does not comply with mandatory procedural requirements including filing an affidavit of compliance and notification of service.
[1] Substituted service of process through the secretary of state requires a showing of due diligence in attempting personal service and evidence of defendant's concealment;…
[2] Substituted service of process must comply with mandatory statutory procedural requirements including filing an affidavit of compliance and notification of service under…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA process server attempted to effect personal service on defendant driver at his last known address but was unsuccessful, and plaintiff sought substit…
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 Concealment Of Whereabouts cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The order under review denied a motion to quash substituted service of process on the defendant driver through the secretary of state based on the allegation that the defendant was concealing his whereabouts. § 48.171, Fla.Stat. (1989). We reverse because (1) the plaintiffs’ showing, which was only that the process server could not effect personal service on the defendant at his last known address, was woefully insufficient to establish their “due diligence” or the existence of concealment, Wiggam v. Bamford, 562 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Torelli v. Travelers Indem. Co., 495 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); compare Fernandez v. Chamberlain, 201 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1967); Steedman v. Polero, 181 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); and (2) mandatory procedural requirements, including the filing of an affidavit of compliance and a notification of service, see § 48.161(1), Fla.Stat. (1989), were not satisfifed. See Gloucester Engineering, Inc. v. Mendoza, 489 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bejar v. Garcia, 354 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lou Jean Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1992); Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Cameron v. Cameron, 570 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ellis v. Ellis, 461 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In the instant case, the wife was awarded the marital home and the husband was awarded all of the stock of the corporat…
-
Nicewonder v. Arstine Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…equired to consider the consequences of income tax laws on the distribution of marital assets and alimony ordered by it, and failure to do so is ordinarily reversible error. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 583 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Cameron v. Cameron, 570 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 599 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1992); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ellis v. Ellis, 461 So. 2…
-
Werner v. Werner, 587 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…First, we review the trial court’s reduction of the value of the mortgages and notes to reflect existing tax liability. In our view, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the tax consequences of the assets. Cameron v. Cameron, 570 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). When the court allocates an asset that is accompanied by tax liability, the court should consider the resulting tax liability. Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Calamore v. Calamore, 555 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 4…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Lendsay v. Polk F. Cotton and Betty Anne Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Nicolette Wiggam v. Bamford, 562 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Fernandez v. Evert H. Chamberlain, 201 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Gloucester Eng'g, Inc. v. Mendoza, 489 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Steedman v. Polero, 181 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Torelli v. Travelers Indem. Co., 495 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Yinto Bejar & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zenaida Garcia, 354 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Harrison v. The Anclote Manor Found., 207 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1967)