LARRY H. CHESHIRE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT BIRENBAUM, 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.
A special process server appointed in one county is only authorized to serve process in that county.
Cheshire was served in Alachua County by a process server appointed by the sheriff of Marion County. Cheshire moved to dismiss for insufficient servic…
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 Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry Cheshire appeals from orders denying his motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process.1 For the following reasons, we reverse.
In 1996, plaintiffs sued Cheshire, a resident of Alachua County, in Dade Circuit Court. Cheshire was served in Alachua County by a process server appointed by the sheriff of Marion County. Cheshire moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process, specifically alleging that the process server was not authorized to serve him in Alachua County. In both cases, the trial court denied the motions to dismiss, and in doing so, erred.
Section 48.021(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “[a] special process server appointed in accordance with this section shall be authorized to serve process in only the county in which the sheriff who appointed him or her resides_” (Emphasis added). Here, the process server was authorized to serve process only in Marion County. Service on Cheshire was thus legally defective, even though he received actual notice of the suit filed in Dade County. See Abbate v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (it is “overwhelming law in Florida that strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process is required”). A harmless error analysis does not apply. Id.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
. The orders stem from two related actions filed against him by different plaintiffs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Decker v. Kaplus, 763 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…g., Abbate v. Provident National Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).1 The process server also lacked the credentials of a “special process server” in Lake County pursuant to Florida Statutes section 48.021(3). See, e.g., Cheshire v. Birenbaum, 688 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Although the service upon the Deckers was defective because the process server was not qualified under the former version of section 48.27 or section 48.021(3), Florida Statute (1996), it was not void. In State ex rel. Gore v. C…
-
Vidal v. Suntrust Bank, 41 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…erve process. Where service is made by a person not legally authorized to serve process, service is defective, and jurisdiction is not acquired over the person, even though the defendant received actual notice of the suit. See Cheshire v. Birenbaum, 688 So. 2d 430, 430-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Abbate v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Although no case has ever dealt with the failure to include the notation of time of service on the copy of the complaint left with the served party…
Authorities Cited
- Abbate v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)