MONICA ALICE ULLRICH
v.
FEDERAL MORTGAGE LENDING, LLC, ETC.
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.
A party asserting defective service of process must challenge personal jurisdiction in the initial motion or waives the claim.
[1] A party asserting defective service of process must challenge personal jurisdiction in the initial motion or waives the claim.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a party asserting defective service of process must challenge personal jurisdiction in the initial motion”
Court citing Century-Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 320 So. 3d 929, 930-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Monica Alice Ullrich was served in a mortgage lending lawsuit and entered into default on January 28, 2025. She filed a motion to vacate the default o…
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 Judicial Default cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 21, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1474 Lower Tribunal No. 24-21227-CA-01 ________________
Monica Alice Ullrich, Appellant,
vs.
Federal Mortgage Lending, LLC, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
The Tome Law Firm, P.A., and Jay R. Tome (Davie), for appellant.
No Appearance, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant Monica Alice Ullrich challenges a July1, 2025 non-final order that denied her April 16, 2025 motion that sought both to (i) quash service of process, and (ii) reconsider an earlier interlocutory order that denied Appellant’s February 27, 2025 motion to vacate a January 28, 2025 judicial default. We have jurisdiction to review only that portion of the challenged order denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).1 We find no error in the trial court’s determination that Appellant waived her improper service claim by not raising the claim at her first opportunity (that is, in her February 27, 2025 motion to vacate default), and affirm that portion of the challenged order denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. See Century-Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 320 So. 3d 929, 930-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (holding that a party asserting defective service of process must challenge personal jurisdiction in the initial motion); Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fla.
3 R. Civ. P. 1.140(b), (h). The remainder of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Century - Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 320 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Valledor Co., Inc. v. Zena Decky, 338 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)