MANUEL E. SALINAS, APPELLANT,
v.
KRISTIN N. PASCARIELLO, 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.
Manuel Salinas appeals a trial court order denying his motion to quash service of a modification petition filed by his ex-wife Kristin Pascariello. The court reversed, holding that Salinas's counsel's general appearance in 2014 did not waive defects in service of the 2011 modification petition, and remanded for a hearing on the merits.
The court held that while a general appearance could waive objections to personal jurisdiction, an after-the-fact general appearance does not waive defects in service of process related to a supplemental modification petition. Therefore, the general appearance had no bearing on whether Salinas received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the modification petition.
[1] A general appearance by counsel after the entry of an order does not waive a defect in the service of process related to a supplemental modification petition.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion to quash service is reviewed de novo.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While a general appearance could waive objections relating to the trial court exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant, an after-the-fact general appearance does not waive a defect in the service of process related to a supplemental modification petition.”
Establishes the core holding distinguishing between waiver of jurisdiction objections and waiver of service defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced by final judgment in April 2010. In April 2011, Pascariello filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, and the trial cou…
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 Set Aside Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Manuel Salinas appeals a trial court order denying his verified motion to quash service and to set aside the order granting Appellee Kristin Pascariello’s motion to Modify timesharing and child support. Because Salinas’s counsel’s general appearance' did not constitute waiver of service, we reverse.
. The parties were .divorced by entry of an April 28, • 2010 final judgment for dissolution of marriage..that ratified the parties’ mediation agreement. On April 20, 2011, Paseariello filed a petition to modify the final judgment’s parenting plan. The trial court granted that modification petition on June 7, 2011.
Although the record reflects that the summons to serve Salinas with Pascariel-lo’s petition was issued on- April 20, 2011, Salinas asserts that he was never served with that petition. Salinas asserts under oath that he learned of the modification order only on June 2,2014, when his attorney reviewed the trial court’s files on this case. In order to conduct such review, Salinas’s attorney filed a general notice of appearance.
On June 12, 2014, Salinas filed his verified motion to quash service and set aside the modification order. On February-17, 2015, without conducting a hearing on the motion, the trial court1 entered an order denying Salinas’s motion. In relevant part, the order reads asi follows:< “Denied, as movant’s counsel filed a General Appearance on 6/2/14.” This appeal follows.
A ruling on a motion to quash service is reviewed de novo. Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard, 954 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Salinas’s motion to quash service never received a hearing, but was instead “denied, as movant’s counsel filed a General Appearance on .6/2/14.” While a general *964appearance could waive objections relating to the trial court exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant, an after-the-fact general appearance does not waive a defect in the service of process related to a supplemental modification petition. See DiGiovanni v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 83 So.3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In other words, whether Salinas’s counsel made a general appearance in 2014 has no bearing on whether Salinas was given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Pascariello’s modification petition.
Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Salinas’s Motion to Quash Service and other assorted relief, and remand the motion for a hearing to- allow the trial court to adjudicate the motion on its merits.1
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 954 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- DiGIOVANNI v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 83 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)