TELF CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JESUS PAREDES, A/K/A JESUS OSVALDO PAREDES, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
IVON GOMEZ, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of motions to quash service of process, holding that a process server's regular return of service is presumed valid and cannot be impeached by uncorroborated denials without clear and convincing evidence.
A process server's return of service that is regular on its face is presumed valid and cannot be impeached by a defendant's uncorroborated denial without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
[1] A process server's return of service that is regular on its face is presumed valid, and a defendant seeking to invalidate service must present clear and convincing eviden…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a process server's return of service on a defendant which is regular on its face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary”
Establishing the presumption of validity for regular returns of service
Appellants Telf Corporation and Jesus Paredes sought to quash service of process, claiming Paredes did not reside at the address where service was acc…
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 Return Of Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAME.
We affirm the order of the trial court denying appellants’ respective motions to quash service of process. It has well been established that a process server’s return of service on a defendant which is regular on its face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary. Florida Nat’l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Brugh v. Savings & Profit Sharing Pension Fund of United Ins. Co. of Am., 211 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
Further, a defendant may not impeach the validity of the summons with a simple denial of service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his denial. Halphen, 641 So. 2d at 496; Jefferson Bank & Trust v. Levy, 498 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Where as here, the individual appellant, who happens also to be the resident agenVofficer/direetor/shareholder of the corporate appellant, sought to attack the service of process with uncorroborated affidavits that he did not reside at the address to which service was accepted and that the corporate appellant transacted no business at that address, we conclude that appellants have not sustained their high burden of demonstrating the invalidity of their service.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…d to be valid and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 769; Melchi Dev. Group, Inc. v. Berky Dev. Group, L.L.C., 918 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). However, if the return is defective on its face, it cannot be relied upon as evidence that the service of process was valid. Klosenski, 116 So. 2d at 769; Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 472 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). When there is an…
-
Robles-Martinez v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, 88 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ocess, M.J.W. v. Dep’t. of Children & Families, 825 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), a “return of service that is regular on its face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary.” Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).3 [*180] Here, the verified returns of service were regular on their face, containing all of the information in compliance with the specific requirements of section 48.031(l)(a).4 The trial court correctly determined that this cre…1 / 3
-
Emmer v. Brucato, 813 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…oke the jurisdiction of the court, Knabb v. Morris, 492 So. 2d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), a return of service, which is regular on its face, is presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Whether that presumption is overcome is a factual one for the trial court. Titus Bros. Roofing Co. v. Blank, 542 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The defaulting party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that service wa…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Slomowitz v. E.O. Walker and Geneva Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Leyda Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- NEW Port Largo, Inc. v. Mary Anne Munz and substitute trustee, 498 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Brugh v. The Sav. & Profit Sharing Pension Fund OF United Ins. Co. OF Am., 211 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)