TED ARISON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT OFFER AND OFFER & ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., GEORGE BARBAR, ALICE BAY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MERLE WOOD, WOOD & ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ROBERT JEPSON, 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.
The court held that the 120-day service period is tolled while a defendant contests the adequacy of service, and that good cause for late service exists when a defendant must be served in a foreign country.
Plaintiff initially attempted substituted service on a foreign defendant within 120 days, which was quashed. Plaintiff then served the defendant in a …
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 Untimely Service cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Ted Arison appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss which was grounded on plaintiffs failure to serve process on him within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, as is required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i). We affirm.
Arison, a resident and citizen of Israel, was first served by substituted service within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. After the trial court denied Arison’s motion to quash that service, he appealed to this court, and we reversed because the substituted service did not comply with section 48.161, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). Arison v. Offer, 626 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Following our reversal plaintiff promptly served Arison in Israel through the Hague Convention; however, that service occurred more than 120 days after the filing of the complaint, and Arison moved to dismiss. The trial court found that plaintiff had demonstrated good cause under rule 1.070(i) for not serving Arison within 120 days, and Ari-son appeals. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Although the issue has not been decided in Florida, the federal courts have held that under the federal counterpart to rule 1.070, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the 120 day service period is tolled while a defendant contests the adequacy of service. See, e.g., Bruley v. Lincoln Property Co., N.C., Inc., 140 F.R.D. 452, 455 (D.Colo.1991); Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 614 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.Ohio 1985). And the federal 120 day rule, by its own terms, is inapplicable where the defendant is served through the Hague Convention in a foreign county.
The trial court concluded that plaintiff had shown good cause both because defendant was contesting service and because defendant had to be served in a foreign country. We find no abuse of discretion on either ground and affirm.
STONE and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Totura & Co., Inc. v. Williams, 754 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2000)…at she had to comply with rule 1.070(i), the purpose of which is to assure the “diligent prosecution of law suits once a complaint is filed.” Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla.1992). Id. at 275. Furthermore, in Arison v. Offer, 669 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court concluded that the filing of the complaint initiated the 120-day period under rule 1.070(j). On that same date, this court also stated in Docktor v. McCrocklin, 669 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), that “we reverse fo…
-
Eldridge v. Multi-Resources, Inc., 695 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…at she had to comply with rule 1.070(i), the purpose of which is to assure the “diligent prosecution of law suits once a complaint is filed.” Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla.1992). Id. at 275. Furthermore, in Arison v. Offer, 669 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court concluded that the filing of the complaint initiated the 120-day period under rule 1.070Q). On that same date, this court also stated in Docktor v. McCrocklin, 669 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), that “we reverse for…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Ervin Blocker, 806 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…1.360 because the only matter pending before the court was the contempt proceeding. See Goulboume, 648 So. 2d at 857-58. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering such testing because the issue was res judicata. Arison v. Offer, 669 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The last issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in vacating child support arrearages. Child support payments that remain unpaid are a vested right of the child, and “they can not be cancelled or reduced re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pansy O. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Arison v. Offer, 626 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)