JOHN M. DICKINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON A. DICKINSON, 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 held that the issue of service validity was moot because proper service was eventually accomplished by a deputy sheriff, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause for the delay in service.
Appellant appealed an order denying his motion to quash service, arguing service was untimely and invalid due to the process server's certification co…
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 Mootness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from an order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion to quash service. Appellant raises two points on appeal: (1) that service was not perfected within the 120-day window provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070; and (2) that service was rendered invalid because he was served by a process server certified in a different county than the one where the action originated, in violation of section 48.27(2), Florida Statutes.
Regarding the first point, the trial court found that there was good cause excusing the failure to perfect service within 120 days. We find no abuse of discretion, and affirm as to this issue without further comment.
As to the second issue, Appellant correctly states that under section 48.27(2), Florida Statutes, for service by a private process server to be valid, the server must be certified in the county where the action originated. See Abbate v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). However, the record before us reflects that a deputy sheriff properly served Appellant before the order on appeal was entered. As Appellee correctly states, the issue is moot since proper service has now been accomplished.
We AFFIRM and REMAND for consideration on the merits.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barr v. Shaina Thorpe, Esq. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…ital Corp., 771 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (concluding that the service of process issue was moot where the Appellee cured the alleged infirmity by properly re-serving the Appellant during the pendency of the appeal); Dickinson v. Dickinson, 706 So. 2d 114, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ("[T]he record before us reflects that a deputy sheriff properly served Appellant before the order on appeal was entered. As Appellee correctly states, the issue is moot since proper service has now been accomplished."). Th…
Authorities Cited
- Abbate v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)