LINDA YELTON, APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2014-08-22
No. 1D13-5630
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
146 So. 3d 1207 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2014) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the non-final order on appeal denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. The order states that Appellant waived her defense of lack of jurisdiction by filing a pro se motion for enlargement of time to respond to Appellee’s mortgage foreclosure complaint. However, a motion for enlargement of time that does not go to the merits of the case is not “active participation” in the proceedings, and therefore, does not constitute submission to the court’s jurisdiction and waiver of any objection to service of process. See DeGiovanni v. BAG Home Loans Serv., L.P., 83 So.3d 934, 935-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Byers v. VIA Card Services, N.A., 82 So.3d 1166, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So.2d 590, 590-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Keeter v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 201 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
    …ned that Appellant, the borrower, waived any objection to the service of process when she “made an appearance” in the case by filing a motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. This was error. See Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 146 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing order denying borrower’s motion to quash service in a foreclosure case and holding that “a motion for enlargement of time that does not go to the merits of the case is not ‘active participation’ in the proceedings, and…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw