S.T.R. INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HIDALGO CORP., 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.
S.T.R. Industries, a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Florida, successfully challenged service of process where the process server served a non-employee at the corporation's Illinois office. The court reversed the denial of the motion to quash, holding that Hidalgo failed to comply with Florida's strict statutory hierarchy for serving corporations.
The court held that service was improper and quashed it because Hidalgo failed to comply with section 48.081(1)'s requirements. The process server's affidavit did not establish that superior corporate officers were absent or that diligent search for them was conducted, and McKillip was not an S.T.R. employee.
[1] Service of process on a corporation's business agent is permissible only when superior corporate officers and directors are unavailable.
[2] A plaintiff bears the burden of proving a diligent search for superior officers or the necessity for substitute service when attempting to serve a corporation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (2001), governs service of process on corporations and must be strictly complied with.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of statutory compliance for service on corporations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHidalgo Corp. sued S.T.R. Industries for conversion of funds. The process server's return indicated service on Mary McKillip as a business agent at S.…
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 On Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
S.T.R. Industries, Inc., a foreign corporation, appeals from an order denying its motion to quash service of process. We reverse.
Appellee, Hidalgo Corp., a Florida corporation, filed suit against S.T.R., alleging conversion of funds paid by a third party to S.T.R. instead of Hidalgo. The return of service states that Mary McKillip was served as business agent for S.T.R. at 9:05 a.m. on November 29, 2001, at S.T.R.’s offices in Cary, Illinois. S.T.R. is neither licensed nor qualified to do business in Florida. The return of service is silent as to any attempts to serve any of the corporation’s superior officers.
S.T.R. moved to quash service of process and submitted an affidavit stating that Mark Stoller was the sole officer and resident agent, that he was present at the business on December 5, 2001, and that no one had attempted service of process on that date. A second affidavit of an S.T.R. delivery driver stated that he found the complaint and summons in the parking lot outside S.T.R.’s business on December 5, 2001. A supplemental affidavit stated that Mary McKillip was not an S.T.R. employee.
Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (2001), governs service of process on corporations and must be strictly complied with. See International Steel Truss Co. v. Artec Group, Inc., 824 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Section 48.081(1) specifies a certain hierarchy of individuals upon whom process against a corporation may be served.1 “[S]ervice of process may be made on a corporation’s business agent only in the absence of superior corporate officers and directors.” Sierra Holding, Inc. v. Inn Keepers Supply Co., 464 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Subsection (1) requirements are much stricter and much more specific than the requirements for service of process under subsection (3). See Richardson v. Albury, 505 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Section 48.081(3) allows alternative service on any employee at the corporation’s place of business if the corporation has failed to designate a registered agent pursuant to section 48.091. However, this subsection only applies to corporations licensed or qualified to do business in Florida and therefore does not apply to service on S.T.R. See Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., 665 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Hidalgo failed to follow the requirements of section 48.081(1), and thus it failed to properly serve S.T.R. The burden of proof was upon Hidalgo to show a diligent search for superior officers or the necessity for substitute service. The affidavit of the process server failed to indicate that the business agent was served in the absence of superior officers.
Service of process is therefore quashed.
Reversed.
. The pertinent provisions of section 48.081 provide:
(1) Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
(a) On the president or vice president, or other head of the corporation;
(b) In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a) on the cashier, treasurer, secretary, or general manager;
(c) In the absence of any persons described in paragraph (a)or paragraph (b), on any director; or (d) In the absence of any person described in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph (c), on any officer or business agent residing in the state.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suntrust Bank v. Elec. Wireless Corp. & Fabian Pesantes, 23 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…was made at 11:40 a.m., as indicated on the process server’s return of service, we conclude that the service complied with Florida law. This finding is not in conflict, as Electronic Wireless suggests, with S.T.R. Industries, Inc. v. Hidalgo Corp., 832 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In S.T.R, evidence was provided that the corporation’s sole officer and registered agent was present at the corporation at the time of the alleged service; the alleged service was on a woman who was not an employee of the corpora…
-
Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard, 954 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…o. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Labbee v. Harrington, 913 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Section 48.081, Florida Statutes, governs service of process on a corporation and must be strictly complied with. S.T.R. Indus., Inc. v. Hidalgo Corp., 832 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also York Commc’ns, Inc. v. Furst Group, Inc., 724 So. 2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“Stat-utes governing service of process should be strictly construed, and valid service on a domestic corporation may only be effecte…
-
Verabella Falls Condo. v. Sosa, 77 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…istered agent in Florida, service of process could not be made pursuant to the alternative provided in section 48.081(3), but had to be accomplished pursuant to the hierarchical categories of section 48.081(l)(a)-(d). S.T.R. Indus. v. Hidalgo Corp., 832 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Lisa does not stand for the proposition that service of process on registered agents of corporations qualified to transact business in Florida must comply with the hierarchical provisions of section 48.081(l)(a)-(d). This would…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Sierra Holding, Inc. v. INN Keepers Supply Co., 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Int'l Steel Truss Co. v. The Artec Grp., Inc., 824 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Richardson v. Albury, 505 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Wash. Cap. Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc., 665 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)