ARLENE PREUDHOMME, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS AND GARTH BAILEY, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the appellee's affidavit alone was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required to overcome the presumption of valid service.
[1] A plaintiff bears the burden of proving proper service of process, requiring a showing that the return of service is facially valid or regular.
[2] If a return of service is regular on its face, service of process is presumed valid, and the party challenging service must overcome this presumption with clear and convi…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought to serve process on the appellee. The return of service was regular on its face, creating a presumption of valid service. Appellee mo…
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 Presumption Of Valid Service cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the order granting the motion to quash service of process.
A plaintiff seeking to “invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of proving proper service,” which requires a showing that the return of service is “facially valid or regular on its face.” Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So.3d 385, 389 (Fla.2015). “If the return is regular on its face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presump*1058tion by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. (quoting Re-Emp’t Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bornstein, 39 So.3d 500, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Thus,
a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present “clear and convincing evidence” to corroborate his denial of service. Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Clear and convincing evidence requires that the witnesses to a fact be credible; the facts testified to must be distinctly remembered; the details must be narrated exactly and in order; the testimony must be clear, direct and weighty; and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue.
Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So.2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Bornstein, 39 So.3d at 503 (stating “clear and convincing evidence” standard for overcoming presumption of valid service).
Here, appellant met her initial burden of establishing the validity of service, as the return of service was regular on its face. The burden thus shifted to appellee to demonstrate that the place of service was not his usual place of abode. Appellee presented no documentation or live testimony at the hearing on the motion to quash, only his affidavit, which fell short of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. See Johnson v. Christiana Tr., 166 So.3d 940, 943-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farfoura M. Rizk v. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R BY MCM Cap. P'rs, LLC, 255 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Preudhomme v. Matthews, 194 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Johnson v. Christiana Trust, 166 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).…
Authorities Cited
- Slomowitz v. E.O. Walker and Geneva Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Bornstein, 39 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015)
- Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Johnson v. Christiana Tr., 166 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)