DAN WINCOR, APPELLANT,
v.
VELLA POTASH, 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.
In this jurisdictional appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether posted service of process under Florida's unlawful detainer statute was sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant for claims beyond unlawful detainer itself, such as civil theft, fraud, and monetary damages claims.
The court affirmed denial of the motion to quash as to the unlawful detainer count, finding service was properly made in accordance with the statute. However, the court reversed as to the remaining counts seeking monetary damages and other relief, holding that posted service is adequate to determine interest in property but insufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction for entering money judgments enforceable against other assets.
[1] Service by posting is adequate to determine interest in real property but is not sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant for the purpose of entering a…
[2] A plaintiff may properly serve a defendant in an unlawful detainer action by posting a copy of the summons and complaint on the property, pursuant to section 82.061, Flor…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Service by posting is adequate to determine interest in the property but is not sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the purpose of entering a money [*651] judgment, which may be enforced against other assets.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that posted service under Florida law is limited to property-interest determinations and cannot support jurisdiction for monetary damage claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the defendant alleging unlawful detainer, civil theft and exploitation, fraud, unlawful filing …
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 Unlawful Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We grant the motion, for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place.
The defendant appeals a non-final order determining the jurisdiction of the person, which- -was entered after the defendant filed his Second Amended Motion to Quash Service. He makes several arguments. We find merit in only one of them. We affirm in part, reverse, in part, and remand the case to the trial court.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that alleged the defendant had taken possession of the plaintiffs- real property, had denied her access to the property, and .has refused to vacate the property. The second amended complaint pleaded counts for unlawful detainer, civil theft and exploitation, fraud, unlawful filing of false, documents, undue .influence, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff served, the defendant by posting a copy of the summons and complaint on the property, pursuant to -section 82.061, Florida Statutes (2016). That statute provides for posted service for unlawful, detainer actions.
In his Second Amended Motion to Quash, the defendant argued among other things- that the posting was insufficient to obtain service over him. Alternatively, he argued that even if posted service was effective for the unlawful detainer count, it was insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over him for the remaining counts of the complaint that sought other relief, including monetary damages. He cited Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Brown, 761 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Service by posting is adequate to determine interest in the property but is not sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the purpose of entering a money *651judgment, which may be enforced against other assets.”).
The trial court denied the motion, and ordered the defendant to answer the entire complaint. From that order, the defendant has now appealed.
We affirm the order to the extent that it denied the motion to quash service for the unlawful detainer count. The court correctly found that service was properly made in accordance with the statute. We reverse the order to the extent that it- denied the motion to quash service with respect to the remaining counts. On remand, the trial court shall grant the motion to quash service of process as to all counts except the unlawful detainer count.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Warner, May and Levine, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Lakeisha Brown, 761 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)