RAM COATING TECHNOLOGY CORP., F/K/A RAM INDUSTRIAL COATINGS, INC., AND CHARLES ROTH, APPELLANTS,
v.
COURTAULDS COATINGS, INC., A CORPORATION, D/B/A PORTER INTERNATIONAL, 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.
Ram Coating Technology Corp. and Charles Roth appealed a default judgment entered by the trial court in a debt collection action brought by Courtaulds Coatings, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against Roth but reversed the judgment against the corporation, finding that the corporation was never properly served with process.
The court affirmed the judgment against Charles Roth because process was served upon him personally, even though he contested receipt. The court reversed the judgment against Ram Coating Technology Corp. because that entity was never served with process and no summons was ever issued to it, making the judgment void.
[1] A judgment entered against a corporation without service of process is void.
[2] A judgment entered against a corporation is void when no summons was ever issued as to that corporation.
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 judgment entered without service of process is void.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that jurisdiction cannot be obtained without proper service, making the judgment against Ram Coating Technology Corp. void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCourtaulds Coatings sued Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc. for an outstanding debt. Initial service was attempted on an unnamed corporate employee who ref…
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 Corporate Dissolution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek reversal of a final judgment entered upon a default. We affirm as to appellant Charles Roth, individually, but reverse as to the appellant corporation, Ram Coating Technology Corp.1
Appellee filed suit against a corporation known as Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc., for recovery of an outstanding debt. A summons was served on “Jane Doe” at the corporate office. The process server’s return stated that the registered agent was not present when service was made and that “Jane Doe,” the corporate employee, refused to give her name. Thereafter, by amended complaint, Charles Roth, individually, President of Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc., was named as a defendant. The record reflects the summons pertaining to the amended complaint was personally served upon Roth, although he has denied that service was actually made upon him.
Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc. was dissolved in October 1991. In January 1992, a second amended complaint was filed, naming “Ram Coating Technology Corp., f/k/a Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc.” as a defendant. The record reflects that no summons ever issued as to Ram Coating Technology Corp. In April 1992, a default was entered against Ram Coating Technology Corp., f/k/a Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc., and Charles Roth. Appellants sought to have the default set aside on several grounds, including the assertion that process had not been adequately served on each of the defendants. The trial court denied all motions to set aside the default, and a final judgment was entered against appellants.
With respect to Charles Roth, individually, we find no basis to reverse. The record reflects that process was served upon him, and while Roth contests this fact, the trial court obviously concluded otherwise. Since appellant has failed to furnish a transcript of any hearings before the trial judge, review of the trial court’s ruling on this issue is foreclosed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). For the same reason, we cannot pass upon the lower court’s obvious rejection of Roth’s assertion that the default judgment should have been set aside for excusable neglect or that a meritorious defense to appellee’s claim exists.
As for Ram Coating Technology Corp., however, we conclude that final judgment was improperly entered. There is no contention that Ram Coating Technology Corp. was served. The suggestion in the second amended complaint that Ram Coating Technology Corp. was simply the new name for Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc., and the affidavit of appellee’s credit manager that the allegations made in the complaint were true are insufficient bases to confer jurisdiction upon this separate incorporated entity in the absence of a summons. A judgment entered without service of process is void. Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Falkner v. Amerifirst Savings & Loan, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Here, not only does the record reflect the absence of service of process on RAM Coating Technology Corporation; no summons was ever issued as to that corporation. The default and resulting final judgment are accordingly void. See, Windmill Restaurant Systems, Inc. v. C & W Limited, 416 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Accordingly, final judgment as to Charles Roth is AFFIRMED, but the final judgment entered against Ram Coating Technology Corp. is REVERSED.
SMITH, WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . The original filed opinion in this cause is withdrawn, and the instant opinion is substituted therefor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Padgett, 704 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…pellant’s motion to set aside the previously entered support modification order because the prior order affected the substantial rights of Appellant, absent notice and an opportunity to be heard. Ram Coating Tech. Corp. v. Courtaulds Coatings, Inc., 625 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(holding that judgment entered absent notice to interested party concerning hearing thereon renders judgment void); Watson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(holding it is well settled that “[w]hen a party has…
-
Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Lacey-Bogue, 766 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…n over the party and cannot render a valid judgment against it. See Totura & Company, Inc. v. Williams, 754 So. 2d 671 (Fla.2000).; Allbritton v. Stahlman, 683 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ram Coating Technology Corp. v. Courtaulds Coatings, Inc., 625 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. S & L Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Any judgment so rendered is void. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); Caudell v. Leventis, 43 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1950).…
-
Stainless Marine, Inc. v. Cobra Sport Fishing Boats, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)….App.P. 9.200(a)(4), (b)(4), and therefore no way to know whether these arguments were presented by plaintiff to the trial court. See Lederman v. Shore, 707 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Ram Coating Tech. Corp. v. Courtaulds Coatings, Inc., 625 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We therefore decline to disturb the order now under review. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Schaeffer v. State, 416 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)