MID-FLORIDA ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY LOU TAYLOR, 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.
Mid-Florida Associates appealed the trial court's order denying their motion to dismiss for failure to effect timely service of process. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause for the delay in service, where the appellees made diligent efforts to serve the defendants but were hindered by the defendants' failure to maintain current corporate addresses with the Pennsylvania Department of State.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the action. The appellees established good cause for the delay in service through an affidavit from the private investigator documenting their diligent efforts and explaining that the delay was due to appellants' failure to maintain current corporate addresses with the Pennsylvania Department of State.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in declining to dismiss an action if reasonable cause for failure to effect timely service of process is documented.
[2] A party may demonstrate good cause for delayed service of process by showing diligent efforts to locate and serve the defendant, even if those efforts are ultimately unsu…
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“The trial court has "broad discretion in declining to dismiss an action if reasonable cause for failure to effect timely service is documented."”
Establishes the legal standard governing trial court discretion in service of process delay cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees hired a private investigator on April 5, 1991, to locate the owners of Palatka Mall, identifying appellants as the owners. Beginning in Sept…
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 Good Cause For Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying dismissal of the action below.1 Because appellee failed to obtain service of process on appellants within the requisite 120 days, appellants moved to dismiss the case. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.070®. Appellees responded to the motion and convinced the court that they had good cause to show for the delay.
The trial court has “broad discretion in declining to dismiss an action if reasonable cause for failure to effect timely service is documented.” Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla.1992). Appellee filed the affidavit of a private investigator with the trial court, which explained the reasons for appellee’s delay. On April 5, 1991, appellee’s counsel hired the private investigator to find the owners of the Palatka Mall. The investigator reported to appellee’s counsel that appellants were the owners of the Palatka Mall. On September 11, 1991, appellee’s counsel wrote to the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Sheriffs Department requesting service of process on appellants. Appellee’s counsel again requested the service of the.private investigator in January of 1992 because the Montgomery County Sher iff s Office had not served appellants. Appel-lee’s counsel wrote to the sheriff in Chester County, the county adjacent to Montgomery County, requesting service of process on appellants. ' All of this was done before the expiration of the 120-day time limit for service of process. The investigator was again advised that appellants had not been served. The investigator then discovered that General Syndicators of America had moved, but the Pennsylvania Department of State corporate records still listed their old address, and Mid-Florida Associates, Inc. was not listed in the Pennsylvania Department of State Cor-pprate records. Appellants were served on June 18, 1993. The trial court found that appellee attempted to serve appellants, but was unable to complete service of process on appellants prior to the 120-day time limit “due to the nature of appellants,” which we interpret to mean because appellants failed to provide their correct address to the Pennsylvania Department of State corporate records. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss appellee’s action.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially in result only, without opinion.
. We have jurisdiction. See Sheriff of Brevard County v. Lampman-Prusky, 634 So. 2d 660, 661 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Comisky v. Rosen Management Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Contra, RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t expand rule 9.130(a)(3) so as to render appealable an order denying a motion to dismiss based solely on the failure to obtain timely service of process. Khandjian, 619 So. 2d at 349. We certify conflict with Mid-Florida Associates, Ltd. v. Taylor, 641 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and Comisky v. Rosen Management Service, Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(en banc). Motion granted; appeal dismissed. . Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1992).…
-
Thomas v. Silvers, 748 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1999)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), in which the district court certified conflict with Mid-Florida Associates, Ltd. v. Taylor, 641 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Comisky v. Rosen Management Service, Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The issue underlying the conflict is whether an order denying a motion to dismiss which is b…
-
O'Leary v. John MacDONALD, M.D., Radiologists of N. Fort Lauderdale, P.A., 657 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…efforts exercised by plaintiff during this period to ensure that service was effected. In short, the record is devoid of documentation of “reasonable cause for failure to effect timely service.” Morales; compare Mid-Florida Assocs., Ltd. v. Taylor, 641 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). At the very least, plaintiff could have filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) seeking an extension of the 120-day time limit prior to its expiration, an alternative suggested by Morales. The dismis…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992)
- RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Berge O. Khandjian and Tuula Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Comisky v. Rosen Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Terry v. State, 634 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- The Sheriff OF Brevard Cnty. v. Lampman-Prusky, 634 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)