REINALDO PAREDES, APPELLANT,
v.
RON COCHRAN, AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forfeiture Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment in this forfeiture action, because appellant was not properly served. We agree with the conclusion of the third district, in Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), that service of process of the complaint and rule to show cause in forfeiture actions is governed by the same rules as service of process in other civil actions. Service by certified mail on appellant’s parole officer in New York was thus insufficient.
The sheriff argues that appellant does not have standing because he has no interest in the property under section 932.701(2)(h), Florida Statutes (1993), since appellant told the arresting officer he did not own the money and was only transporting it. Although the statement might be admissible on the issue of whether appellant has standing, it would not, as a matter of law, preclude appellant from asserting a claim.
We therefore reverse and remand for the setting aside of the default judgment.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ocean Bank v. Save Imp. & Exp., Inc., 797 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ean Bank’s motion to vacate should have been granted in part.3 See Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla.1992) (forfeiture actions are not favored in law or equity, and, therefore must be strictly construed). See also, e.g., Paredes v. Cochran, 666 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (denial of motion to vacate in forfeiture action reversed where service of process was not properly effectuated). [*611] Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. . This statut…
-
Rubin Young v. Hon. Donald J. Trump (S.D. Fla. 2025)…Fla. July 19, 2010) (“Although Section 48.111 is silent as to the appropriate methods of service, service by certified mail does not constitute 'delivery' as generally required for service under Florida law." (footnote omitted)); Paredes v. Cochran, 666 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984, 985-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Under Rule 4(j), a plaintiff may also serve a state “that is subject to suit” in two ways. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). First, the plaintiff can deliver…
Authorities Cited
- Hicks v. The City OF Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)