SUZANA POPESCU, APPELLANT,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process where appellant admitted personal service and identity as mortgagor despite defect in her legal name on the summons.
A defect in a defendant's name on a summons does not vitiate service of process where the defendant admits personal service was made and there is no confusion as to the defendant's identity.
[1] A defect in a defendant's name on a summons does not invalidate service of process where the defendant admits personal service and there is no confusion regarding the def…
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 intelligence“where there was no confusion as to who the defendant was, a defect in the name on the summons should not invalidate service”
Court citing Department of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Wright for the principle that name defects do not invalidate service when identity is clear.
Appellant Suzana Popescu was served with process in a mortgage foreclosure action by JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. There was a defect in how her legal nam…
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 Identification Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process. We affirm the trial court’s ruling. Not only does insufficiency of process not compel dismissal of the complaint, the defect in appellant’s proper legal name was not sufficient to vitiate process served, where appellant admitted that personal service was made on her and that she was the mortgagor on the mortgage sought to be foreclosed in this action. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Wright, 813 So.2d 989, 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (where there was no confusion as to who the defendant was, a defect in the name on the summons should not invalidate service); see also Veigle v. St. Cloud Marine, Inc., 818 So.2d 695, 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (finding trial court should have corrected spelling of defendant’s last name in default judgment, rejecting defendant’s argument that this would improperly add him to the case without service of process, and noting defendant “was personally handed the summons and knew that no other ... could possibly have been intended”).
We dismiss the appeal from the-order granting substitution of parties, which we treat as a motion to amend to correct the defendant’s name, as the order is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Fla.R.App. P. 9.130.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Wright, 813 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Veigle v. ST. Cloud Marine, Inc., 818 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)