BREM C. NESSLEIN, APPELLANT,

v.

DAVID C. NESSLEIN, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Capone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 116 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 2013)
  …icit determination, made without the benefit of an evi-dentiary hearing, that a postal cancellation date two days later than the certificate date is sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of compliance with Rule 1.080(f).”); Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“Ms. Nesslein’s motion was timely served, as was evidenced by the certificate of service on the motion itself.... A postal cancellation date is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of compliance with Rule 1.080(f).”…
• Lenore Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
  …(Fla. 1st D.C.A.1988). C. Mere evidence that the postmark was after the time for rehearing has expired is insufficient to rebut prima facie proof that service was effectuated on date sworn to by the moving party’s counsel. See Nesslein v. Nesslein 672 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1996). However, the evidence presented is much more than just the postmark. The certificate of service indicated that the Motion had also been faxed, yet moving party’s attorney could not substantiate that statement, which calls into…
• Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Svitlana Bigley, 120 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
  …e proof of such service in compliance with this rule.” This is true even though the mailed copy of the motion may not have been received by either the clerk or the opposing party before the expiration of the ten-day time limit. Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Mr. Martinez of Miami, Inc. v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 558 So. 2d 153, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Moreover, the date set forth by counsel in the certificate of service “creates a rebuttable presumption which may be…

Authorities Cited

• MR. Martinez OF Miami, Inc. v. Ponce de Leon Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 558 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)