SUSSMAN
v.
ISSAC
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.
Court quashed service of summons where officer posted summons on defendant's door without attempting to locate defendant in the county, failing to comply with Florida Statute 83.22's requirement that such substituted service be used only when defendant cannot be found in the county.
Service by posting on the door is invalid under F.S. 83.22 when the officer makes no effort to locate the defendant in the county before resorting to substituted service.
[1] Service of process by posting on the door of a defendant's residence is improper under F.S. …
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 intelligenceAn officer attempted to serve the defendant by posting the summons and complaint on the door of the defendant's residence after knocking and receiving…
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 Substituted Service cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard before this court on the motion of the defendant to quash the summons and complaint.
On January 8, 1971, an officer of the public safety department, civil division, attempted to serve the defendant by posting the summons and complaint which had issued previously in this action on the door of the premises at which the defendant resides.
The uncontroverted testimony of the officer is that he knocked at the door and, upon receiving no answer, asked a neighbor if the defendant still resided at the premises. When the neighbor answered in the affirmative, the officer made no further inquiry as to the actual location of the defendant but merely posted the summons and complaint on the door of the premises at which the defendant resides.
F. S. 83.22 states as follows —
*51 “Removal of tenant; Service.—If the defendant cannot be found in the county in which the action is pending and either he has no usual place of abode in the county or there is no person of his family above fifteen years of age at his- usual place of abode in the county, the sheriff shall serve the summons by attaching it to some part of the premises involved in the proceedings.”
It appearing to the court that the officer who served the summons and complaint made no effort to find the defendant in the county, and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion to quash the summons and complaint which issued heretofore in the above styled action be and the same is granted.