BRITT K. LYLE, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure case, holding that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether the plaintiff conducted a diligent search and inquiry before attempting constructive service.
When a defendant moves to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure action and the allegations, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing rather than deny the motion summarily.
[1] When a defendant moves to quash constructive service of process and the allegations in the motion, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief, the trial court must co…
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“The party invoking the court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the validity of service of process and the constructive service statutes require strict compliance.”
Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., establishing the burden of proof for service of process validity.
Britt K. Lyle was served constructively in a residential foreclosure action brought by PennyMac Holdings, LLC. Lyle moved to quash the constructive se…
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 Service Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Britt 'K. Lyle (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s order- dehying his motion to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure case. Appellant argues that the trial court should have held an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether Penny-Mac Holdings, LLC, conducted a diligent search and inquiry in attempting to serve him personally with a verified complaint for residential foreclosure. Based on the record before us, which contains the motions and supporting affidavits filed by both parties, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for an- evidentiary hearing. See Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 922 So.2d 340, 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that “[t]he party invoking the court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the validity of service of process” and that “[t]he constructive service statutes require strict compliance”); Talton v. CU Members Mortg., 126 So.3d 446, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Where the allegations of the motion to quash service of *628process, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, then the trial court errs in denying the motion without first affording the movant an evidentiary hearing.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…trial court’s order under rule 1.540(b)(4), claiming that the order was void. The trial court summarily denied that motion. We generally review rulings on motions under rule 1.640(b) for an abuse of discretion. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Brogdon, 186 So. 3d 627, 629 (Fla. 6th DCA 2016). U.S. Bank points to a line of cases suggesting that review is de novo when the issue is whether the party moving under rule 1.640(b) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Rooney v, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 102 So. 3d 73…
Authorities Cited
- Nigel Shepheard and Heather Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 922 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Karletta A. Talton v. CU Members Mortg., 126 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)