THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's order invalidating substituted service on a defendant in a paternity case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's personal appearance at a hearing and active participation constituted a valid submission to the court's jurisdiction, regardless of any defects in the original service.
The court held that the original substituted service was valid and, even if defects existed, the defendant's personal appearance at the hearing and active participation constituted an absolute submission to the court's jurisdiction, curing any potential defect in service.
[1] A party's voluntary appearance and active participation in a court hearing, in response to a notice of hearing, cures any defect in the original service of process and co…
[2] Substituted service of process is valid when a copy of the pleading is served at the defendant's usual place of abode on a person residing therein of the age of fifteen y…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 appearance of appellee at the March 23rd, 1993, hearing, and his active participation therein, not only affirmed the validity of the original service, but furthermore, constituted an absolute submission to the jurisdiction of the court in this case.”
Establishes the court's holding that personal appearance and active participation at a hearing cures any defect in service and constitutes submission to jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State served Rodriguez through substituted service by delivering process to Lydia Vasquez at Rodriguez's usual place of abode. The State later fil…
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 Waiver Of Service Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The uncontroverted evidence in the record of this case reflects that the appellee was served by the appellant, through the use of substituted service, “by serving a copy of this Writ, or a copy of the Complaint, Petition, or initial pleading, at the defendant’s usual place of abode, on a person residing therein of the age of fifteen (15) years or older, to-wit: Lydia Vasquez, person residing therein, informing such person of the contents.” See § 48.031, Fla.Stat. (1993).
Subsequently, the appellant sought blood testing of the appellee. Accordingly, the appellant filed a Motion For Physical Examination which was served on the appellee by mail, along with a Notice of Hearing relating to the said motion. In response thereto, the appellee appeared at the hearing and agreed to pay the cost of the blood tests. As a result thereof, the requested blood tests were ordered and conducted. After the completion of the blood tests, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, reflecting the fact that the “results of the blood tests show a 99.92% probability of paternity.” The Motion for Summary Judgment and a Notice of Hearing were served on the respondent by mail. The respondent did not attend the hearing. At that point, the trial judge, acting sua sponte, entered an order, ruling: “That the original service was invalid because the process server did not identify Lydia Vasquez’s relationship to the respondent.” Appellant appeals the foregoing non-final order determining a lack of jurisdiction over the person of the appellee. Fla. R.App.P. 9.130.
Clearly, the trial court had jurisdiction over the appellee. The concern, if any, created by the nature of the service described above certainly should have dissipated, both legally and factually, when the appellant personally appeared at the March 23rd, 1993, court hearing in response to the original service and the Notice of Hearing.
The appearance of appellee at the March 23rd, 1993, hearing, and his active participation therein, not only affirmed the validity of the original service, but furthermore, constituted an absolute submission to the jurisdiction of the court in this case.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order finding the original service to be invalid is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.