CAM-LA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FIXEL, 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.
Cam-La, Inc. appeals the denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment and motion to quash for insufficiency of process in a promissory note action. The court affirmed, holding that service on the corporation's registered agent was effective notice despite the agent's failure to forward the complaint to the corporation's president, and that Cam-La's eleven-month delay in seeking relief demonstrated lack of due diligence.
Service on a corporation's registered agent constitutes effective notice to the corporation and cannot be vitiated by the agent's failure to give the corporation notice of the suit papers. Additionally, Cam-La failed to establish that the judgment was void and did not move for relief within the required timeframe or with due diligence; the eleven-month delay in seeking to vacate the judgment after learning of the default demonstrated lack of due diligence.
[1] Service on a corporation's registered agent constitutes effective notice to the corporation of pending litigation.
[2] A judgment is not void for lack of notice to a corporation when service is properly made on its designated registered agent.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Service can only be made on some representative or agent of the corporation designated by law.”
Establishes that corporations must be served through designated agents, not directly
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Fixel filed an action against Cam-La on a promissory note in June 1990. Fixel's complaint was properly served on Sharyn Garfield, Cam-La's regis…
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 Motion For Relief From Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Cam-La, Inc., appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside default judgment and for relief from final judgment and its motion to quash for insufficiency of process. We affirm.
On June 22, 1990, David Fixel filed an action on a promissory note against Cam-La. Sharyn Garfield also filed an action against Cam-La seeking fees and costs for legal services. Fixel’s complaint was properly served upon Sharyn Garfield as registered agent of Cam-La on July 5, 1990. Garfield allegedly mailed Fixel’s complaint to the last known address of Joe Cameron, president of Cam-La. On July 16, 1990, Garfield filed an answer to Fixel’s complaint. Then on August 16, 1990, she filed a withdrawal of answer. Fixel filed a motion for default and set the matter for a hearing. On September 25, 1990, the trial court entered a default since Cam-La had not filed an answer or responsive pleading and a final judgment awarding Fixel $80,000.00. The default and final judgment were mailed to Garfield. However, Garfield testified that she never received them.
Cameron did not learn of the lawsuit until February, 1992. On January 19,1993, Cam-La filed a motion to set aside default judgment and relief from final judgment and motion to quash for insufficiency of process. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Cam-La appeals.
Cam-La contends the trial court erred in denying its motion to set aside a default judgment where judgment was void for lack of notice to the corporation. We disagree.
A judgment entered without notice to a party is void. Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709,109 So. 677 (1926); Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (judgment void for lack of service of process); Falkner v. Amerifirst Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (judgment void for lack of service of process); Totalbank v. Gonzalez, 472 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (judgment void for improper service); Saharuni v. Saharuni, 343 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4).
Because a corporation is a fictional entity, there can be no personal service on a corporation. Dade Erection Serv., Inc. v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 379 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). “Service can only be made on some representative or agent of the corporation designated by law.” Id. at 425. Service on a corporation’s registered agent is effective notice to the corporation of the pending litigation. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, Fla. Stat. (1989); see also Country Clubs of Sarasota, Ltd. v. Zaun Equip., Inc., 350 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Service is not vitiated by the registered agent’s failure to give the corporation notice that it had received suit papers on its behalf. Leasefirst v. Allied Mach, of S. Fla., Inc., 597 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
In the instant case, Cam-La designated Garfield as its registered agent as required by sections 48.091(1) and 607-0501(1), Florida Statutes (1989). This authorized Garfield to receive service of process on behalf of Cam-La. See § 48.091(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). Cam-La did not change its registered agent nor did Garfield resign her agency appointment. See § 607.0502, Fla.Stat. (1989). Therefore, Garfield was properly served as the registered agent of Cam-La, see § 607.0504, Fla.Stat. (1989), and the final judgment could not be void for lack of notice.
Having failed to establish that the judgment was void and having failed to move for relief within the one year set forth by rule 1.540(b)(1), Florida Rules of Civil Proce dure, Cam-La could only prevail if it raised a meritorious defense and moved to set aside the judgment with due diligence after learning of the default. See Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Cam-La waited eleven months after it was informed of the default before moving to vacate it. This delay showed a lack of due diligence in seeking relief. See B.C. Builders Supply Co. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
For these reasons, the trial court properly denied Cam-La’s motion to quash for insufficiency of process. The order under review is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…we agree with the state that the court erred. This court has repeatedly held that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void ab initio. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Curry, 632 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Cam-La, Inc. v. Fixel, 632 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McAdam v. Thom, 610 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Falkner v. Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gelkop v. Gelkop…
-
Magnolia Court, LLC v. Moon, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…e Country Clubs of Sarasota, Ltd. v. Zaun Equipment, Inc., 350 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). This service is deemed to give legally effective notice to the corporation or limited partnership of the pending litigation. Cam-La, Inc. v. Fixel, 632 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In addition, “Service is not vitiated by the registered agent's failure to give the corporation notice that it had received suit papers on its behalf.” Id. The characterization of service on a fictional entity as “person…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)
- B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 472 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Country Clubs OF Sarasota, Ltd. v. Zaun Equip., Inc., 350 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dade Erection Serv., Inc. v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 379 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Saharuni v. Seda Nercession Saharuni, 343 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 597 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)