JUSTIN ERIC VAUGHN A/K/A JUSTIN VAUGHN, APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC., APPELLEE
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.
Justin Vaughn appeals the denial of his motion to quash service of process, arguing the summons was defective because it lacked the required court seal mandated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a) and Florida Statute 28.071. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Wells Fargo failed to produce the original sealed summons and thus failed to meet its burden of proving proper service.
The court reversed the order denying the motion to quash service of process. Once a defendant challenges the issuance of a summons on grounds that it lacks the required seal, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce the original summons to prove it was properly issued under seal. Wells Fargo's failure to produce the original sealed summons resulted in a fatal defect in service of process.
[1] A summons must be issued under the clerk's or judge's signature and the seal of the court.
[2] A statute requiring a summons to contain the seal of the clerk of court mandates that the seal be an imprint or impression type seal registered with the Department of Sta…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“issued ... under the clerk's or the judge's signature and the seal of the court”
The mandatory requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a) for proper issuance of a summons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJustin Vaughn was served with a summons in a lawsuit by Wells Fargo Bank. Vaughn challenged the validity of the summons, arguing it was not sealed as …
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 Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
Justin Vaughn appeals the non-final order denying his motion to quash service of process.1 He argues that the court erred in denying his motion where the summons was not sealed as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), which specifically requires process to be “issued ... under the clerk’s or the judge’s signature and the seal of the court_” (Emphasis added). Section 28.071, Florida Statutes (2013), also requires that the summons contain the seal of the clerk of court, which seal “may be an imprint or impression type seal and shall be registered with the Department of State.” Because Vaughn challenged the issuance of the summons on this ground, it was the burden of Wells Fargo to produce the original summons to prove it was issued under seal- pursuant to the statute and rule. See Re-Emp’t Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The record does not reveal that Wells Fargo filed the original summons, so that document is not in the record. A copy of the summons is 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingenieria Y Exportacion de Tecnologia S.L. v. Freytech, Inc., 210 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…process was deficient in this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) (providing that the district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review non-final orders that determine “the jurisdiction of the person”); Vaughn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 153 So. 3d 969, 970 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“An order on a motion to quash service of process is one that determines personal jurisdiction and is thus appealable.”). “In Florida, the Hague Convention applies in all cases ‘where there is occasion to transmit a j…
-
Allstate Mortg. Solutions Transfer, Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 338 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Chestnut v. Nationstar Mortg., 255 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Woide v. MAE, 116 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Sima Sasseen v. Sasseen, 116 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)