LYNNE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. SAUNDERS, APPELLEE
BLUE, Judge.
Lynne Smith appeals the dismissal of her complaint against Christopher Saunders for failure to achieve service within the time prescribed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070©. Smith argues that the trial court should not have dismissed the action after quashing her attempt to serve Saunders through the Secretary of State. We agree and reverse.
This court has held that “[e]ven though service of process ... was invalid, the action ... should remain pending because service, although invalid, was made within the 120-day limit pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070©.” Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1994). In this case, Smith’s time for service ran until April 19,1993: 120 days plus a 45-day extension she received before the expiration of her initial time. Smith served the Secretary of State on April 12, 1993. Thus, Smith made service within the prescribed time even though that service was later quashed.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sneed v. H.B. Daniel Constr. Co., Inc., 674 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…n though the service of process was invalid. In Caban v. Skinner, 648 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the third district held that dismissal was improper where service, albeit invalid, was effected within the 120-day period. Accord Smith v. Saunders, 652 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). [*160] In reaching this result we are persuaded by what we understand the purpose of rule 1.070(i) to be. It is not intended to be a trap for the unwary, nor a rule to impose a secondary statute of limitations based on time of se…
-
Bice v. Metz Constr. Co., Inc., 699 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…as an adjudication on the merits under rule 1.420(a)(1). Bice stipulated that each attempted service was invalid, but she argued that she had complied with Rule 1.070(f) by attempting service within the 120-day period, relying on Smith v. Saunders, 652 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Caban v. Skinner, 648 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); and Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In dismissing Bice’s action against the Hoenigs and James Young & Co., the trial court rejected this argument w…
-
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…er vacating the default final judgment rendered against the appellees for lack of notice but should have allowed the action to remain pending. See, e.g., Sneed v. H.B. Daniel Constr. Co., 674 So. 2d 158 (Fla. [*247] 5th DCA 1996); Smith v. Saunders, 652 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Caban v. Skinner, 648 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1994). Moreover, under the plain language of the rule, any dismissal for noncomp…
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
- Gay Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)