SALLY DOCKTOR, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MCCROCKLIN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Untimely Service cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure, we reverse for failure to serve process within 120 days from the filing of the amended complaint adding appellant as a defendant.
The amended complaint first naming appellant as a defendant was deemed filed on 13 March, but process was not served on her until 3 October. Although a motion was filed and heard arguing that service was outside the 120-day rule, the trial court denied the motion. Even after a motion for reconsideration, the trial court refused to grant the motion. Later when appellant sought relief from the default, she again raised the untimeliness of service, but once again the court denied relief.
There is nothing in this record showing any reason why the mortgagee did not timely serve process, much less anything amounting to good cause. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i). We therefore have no alternative but to re verse and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
REVERSED.
PARIENTE and STEVENSON, 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 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 for failure to serve process within 120 days from the filing of the amended complaint....” We also hold that the 120-day period under rule 1.070(i) begins to run on the date of the filing of the complaint. The…
-
Eldridge v. Multi-Resources, Inc., 695 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…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 failure to serve process within 120 days from the filing of the amended complaint. ...” We also hold that the 120-day period under rule 1.070(i) begins to run on the date of the filing of the complaint. The…
-
Vidal v. Leopoldo Perez and Sylvia Perez, 720 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…of the initial pleading.” An amended complaint has been determined to be an “initial pleading” as to new parties added in an amended complaint. See Eldridge v. Multi-Resources, Inc., 695 So. 2d 1320, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Docktor v. McCrocklin, 669 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, that rule has no application here because defendants were not new parties added as part of the amendment to the complaint. Thus, we reject plaintiffs’ argument on that point. Nevertheless, we reverse the dismissal of t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence