SAM HOUSTON HUFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA MAXINE HEAGY AND PHILLIP JOHN HEAGY, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Sam Houston Huffman appeals an order denying his motion to quash service of summons, arguing that filing a jurisdictional motion alongside other motions did not constitute a submission to the court's jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida Rules of Civil Procedure permit filing jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional motions together without waiving the jurisdictional challenge.
A defendant does not waive or submit to the court's jurisdiction by joining a motion to quash service with other motions. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure permit such joinder without waiving the jurisdictional defense. The trial court erred in denying the motion to quash without hearing it on its merits.
“No [*336] defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion”
Rule 1.11(b) of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court failed to apply in finding waiver of the jurisdictional defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant Sam Houston Huffman filed multiple motions in a civil action, including a motion to quash service of summons (challenging personal juris…
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 Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal, the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, seeks the reversal of an order at common law relating to jurisdiction over the person. The review of such order is provided by Rule 4.2 Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.- The order appealed is as follows:
“This cause came on to be heard before me on motion to strike, motion to quash and motion to dismiss by the defendant, Sam Houston Huffman, and the court having heard from counsel for the respective parties and being of the opinion that the defendant, by his various motions filed herein has submitted to the jurisdiction of this court even though the service of the summons might be subject to attack, which is not now decided.
“It is Ordered and Adjudged that the motion to quash service is denied.”
The sole question presented by the appellant is whether the court ruled correctly that the defendant had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he filed a motion which questioned the jurisdiction of the court over his person and coupled it with other motions which were addressed to the merits of the cause. In the order appealed, the trial judge expressly declined to pass upon the merits of the motion addressed to the jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The judge failed to apply Rule 1.11(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., which provides: “No *336defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion” and Rule 1.11(g) which provides: “A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it the other motions herein provided for and then available to him.” State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Company v. Shields, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 271; Greenberg v. Greenberg, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 608.
Thereupon, the order denying the appellant’s motion addressed to jurisdiction is quashed with directions to the trial judge to proceed to hear said motion upon its merits.
Reversed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Roth, 192 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…Anne Airways, Inc. v. Webb, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 142. The “Order on Motions” brought here by interlocutory appeal is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. SHANNON, Acting C. J., and DAY-' TON, ORVIL L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . Huffman v. Heagy, 122 So. 2d 335; Fla.App.1960. Paulson v. Faas, 171 So. 2d 9; Fla.App.1965.…
-
Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…al judge that by filing other grounds and motions, defensive in character, with their motion attacking service, the defendants made a general appearance. The rules of practice expressly provide otherwise. The case of Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 335, decided by this court is in point, and on authority thereof we reverse the order appealed from. In that case the court said: “The sole question presented by the appellant is whether the court ruled correctly that the defendant had submitted himsel…
-
Paulson v. Faas, 171 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…* * ” For the reasons stated the orders appealed from are affirmed without prejudice to any rights which appellant might assert in a separate suit. Affirmed. . Greenberg v. Greenberg, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 608; Huffman v. Heagy, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 335. . Accord. Florida Fuel Oil v. Springs Villas, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 581; Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 538.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. ELI Lilly & Co. v. Honorable Bayard B. Shields, 83 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1955)
- Greenberg v. Greenberg, 101 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)