JOEL RAMSEY, ET AL.
v.
CITY FIRST MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL.
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.
An individual mortgagor waives a personal jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it at the first opportunity, but a corporate mortgagor that timely moves to quash service is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the validity of service before the trial court may proceed.
[1] A defendant waives a personal jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it at the first opportunity and before taking steps in the proceeding that constitute submission to…
[2] A corporation must be represented by an attorney in court proceedings, and any pleading signed by a non-attorney corporate agent is a nullity; therefore, a corporation th…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense that must be raised at the 'first opportunity' and before the defendant takes any steps in the proceeding constituting submission to the court's jurisdiction.”
Court citing Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) to establish the waiver standard for personal jurisdiction defenses.
Joel Ramsey and 7 Zeros Group, LLC were mortgagors in a judicial mortgage foreclosure action brought by City First Mortgage Corp. The trial court over…
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 29, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0123 Lower Tribunal No. 24-06556-CA-01 ________________
Joel Ramsey, et al., Appellants,
vs.
City First Mortgage Corp., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Nashid Sabir, for appellants.
Diaz & Affiliates, P.A., and Kevin Diaz, for appellee, Alexandria Investment, LLC.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Appellants, Joel Ramsey and 7 Zeros Group, LLC, the mortgagors, appeal a lower court order overruling their objection to a judicial mortgage foreclosure sale and directing the clerk to issue a certificate of title to the third-party bidder, Alexandria Investment, LLC.1 On appeal, appellants assert that the trial court improperly exercised personal jurisdiction over them because service of process was defective. The challenged rulings followed clerical and judicial defaults, an uncontested final summary judgment rendered in favor of City Mortgage Corp., the mortgagee, and the discredited assertion that Ramsey filed for bankruptcy protection before the scheduled sale date. Upon our de novo review, we conclude that Ramsey waived the asserted error by failing to raise lack of personal jurisdiction at the first opportunity. See Clear 2 Close Title, LLC v. Zap Cap., Inc., 373 So. 3d 1183, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“A trial court's ruling on a motion to quash service of process, to the extent it involves questions of law, is subject to de novo review.”); see also Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense that must be raised at the ‘first opportunity’ and before the defendant takes any steps in the proceeding constituting submission to the court's jurisdiction.”). But the same cannot be said for 7 Zeros, as it moved to quash service in its first
3 authorized motion. See Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., Off. of Licensure & Certification, 428 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“[A]lthough an individual may represent himself in court without necessity of employing an attorney, a corporation is not permitted to do so, and a pleading signed in the corporate name by one of its agents or officials is a nullity, and must be disregarded.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order as to Ramsey but reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the validity of service of process upon 7 Zeros.2
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eyal Avi-Isaac v. Wells Fargo Bank, 59 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 428 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Oshana v. Carmelo Destefano Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Clear 2 Close Title LLC v. ZAP Cap., Inc., 373 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)