PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
FELIX GONZALEZ AND FRANCINA M. PAVAN, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed quashing of substituted service where defendants had not lived at the service address for five years, making it not their 'usual place of abode' under Florida Statutes section 48.031(1)(a), despite actual receipt of the summons and complaint.
Substituted service of process is invalid when left at an address that is not the defendant's usual place of abode, even if the defendant actually receives the documents.
[1] Substituted service of process under Florida Statutes section 48.031(1)(a) requires that the address be the defendant's usual place of abode, and service is invalid when…
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 intelligencePortfolio Recovery Associates attempted substituted service by leaving a summons and complaint at a residence with a woman who was the mother of one d…
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 Procedural Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The plaintiff appeals from an order quashing substituted service of process secured, purportedly under section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at her home with a woman who was the mother of one defendant and the mother-in-law of the other. The trial court’s ruling was correct and is affirmed because an undisputed affidavit demonstrated that neither of the defendants had lived at that address for five years, and thus that it was not their “usual place of abode” as the statute requires. See State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 496, 195 So. 145 (1940); Alvarez v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 635 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also DeArmas v. E & W Body Shop Supplies, Inc., 622 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); cf. Small v. Chicola, 929 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). That the defendants actually received the complaint and summons does not affect the result. See Hovarth v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Moschetta v. Atl. Nat’l Bank of Broward, 540 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Affirmed.
. Section 48.03l(1)(a) provides:
Service of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this section.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. King Merritt v. The Honorable David J. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1940)
- Flavia Alvarez v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 635 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Moschetta v. Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Broward, 540 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Becerra v. State, 929 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Hovarth v. AETNA Life Ins. Co. for the Use & Benefit of the Voluntary Benefit Plan FOR Retired Emps. OF White Motor Co., 634 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Norberto DeARMAS v. E & W Body Shop Supplies, Inc., 622 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)