CHARLES WOIDE AND SUSANNAH WOIDE, APPELLANT,
v.
FANNIE MAE, ETC., APPELLEE
Appellants, Charles and Susannah Woide, timely appeal a non-final order denying their motion to quash service of process. They argue the summonses with which they were served were defective because neither contained the deputy clerk’s signature or the circuit court’s official seal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a). Appellee, Fannie Mae, properly concedes error. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a); § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Ball v. Jones, 65 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1953) (“When the Rule mandatorily requires that the 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 trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LAWSON, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vaughn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 153 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…in the record, but it does not indicate that the required seal is affixed to the original document. Therefore, we reverse the order denying Vaughn’s motion to quash service of process and remand this case to the trial court. See Woide v. Fannie Mae, 116 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing the order denying a motion to quash service of process because the summons was not signed by the clerk and was not sealed by the court’s official seal). REVERSED; REMANDED. SAWAYA, COHEN, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Ball v. Jones, 65 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1953)