CHARLES SCHOFIELD AND JULIA D. SCHOFIELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., 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.
The court held that because the process server failed to strictly comply with section 48.081(5), Florida Statutes, the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash service of process.
[1] Service of process statutes must be strictly construed and enforced.
[2] Failure to include the date and time of service, the process server's identification number, or initials on served documents constitutes a failure to strictly comply with…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells Fargo filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against the Schofields. A process server served the Schofields but failed to include the date and t…
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.
Charles and Julia Schofield appeal the non-final order entered by the trial court denying their motion to quash service of process.1 Because the process server failed to strictly comply with section 48.081(5), Florida Statutes (2009), we reverse.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against the Schofields. A process server personally served Julia Schofield and served Charles, through Julia, with a summons, a copy of the complaint, and a notice of lis pendens. However, the process server failed to include the date and time of service, his identification number, or his initials on any of the documents served on the Schofields.
The Schofields filed a motion to quash service of process and a verification of pleading, asserting that the process server failed to comply with the terms of section 48.031(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The statute provides: “A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.” The trial court entered an order denying the Schofields’ motion.
The Schofields argue that the trial court should have granted their motion to quash because the process server failed to comply with section 48.031(5). We agree.
Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions. See Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So.2d 952, 954 (Fla.2001) (holding that “statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced”); Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that “courts require strict construction of, and compliance with, the provisions of statutes governing service of process”). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Schofields’ motion to quash service of process.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and EVANDER, J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woide v. MAE, 116 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…summons shall be ‘issued by the Clerk’, it requires that the Clerk, or his lawfully authorized deputy, sign such summons as a ‘testimonial by which the authenticity of the summons is made to appear.” ’); see also Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So. 3d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions.”). Accordingly, because the summonses failed to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), we reverse the order of the tr…
-
Walker v. Fifth Third Mortg. Co., 100 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.” § 48.031(5), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). The trial court denied the Walkers’ motion. In Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), this Court addressed the identical situation. In reversing the order denying the defendant’s motion to quash service, we explained: [*268] Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions. See Shurm…
Authorities Cited
- Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001)
- Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)