CARLOS MONROY
v.
GABRIELA PRADO
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.
Substituted service of process on the Florida Secretary of State was valid under Florida Statutes sections 48.161 and 48.171, and the Hague Convention does not apply when the location of the person to be served is unknown.
[1] Substituted service of process on the Florida Secretary of State as a statutory agent is valid under Florida Statutes sections 48.161 and 48.171 when the defendant's loca…
[2] The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents does not apply in cases where the address of the person to be served is unknown.
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 intelligence“[T]he Hague Convention is expressly inapplicable in cases where the location of the person to be served is unknown.... [T]he Convention 'shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.”
Establishes that the Hague Convention does not govern service when the defendant's address is unknown.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos Monroy, a foreign national and resident of Mexico, was allegedly involved in a car crash in Florida. The Florida Secretary of State was served …
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 Hague Service Convention cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0085 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CA-004685
CARLOS MONROY, Appellant, v. GABRIELA PRADO, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Patricia L. Strowbridge, Judge.
March 13, 2026
PRATT, J.
Appellant Carlos Monroy, a foreign national and resident of Mexico who was allegedly involved in a car crash in Florida, appeals the trial court's nonfinal order denying his motion to quash service of process. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). “[W]e review the trial court's legal conclusions and application of law to facts de novo and its factual findings for competent, substantial evidence.” Moore v. State, No. 6D2024-2740, 2025 WL 1275891, at *3 (Fla. 6th DCA May 2, 2025); e.g., St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Mem'l Healthcare
Grp., Inc., 967 So. 2d 794, 799 (Fla. 2007) ("Under the familiar maxim, we review findings of fact under the competent substantial evidence standard, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo." (citation omitted)).
In this case, the Florida Secretary of State was served with substituted service of process on February 19, 2024, as Appellant's statutory agent for service of process. Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to quash service of process. See, e.g., Alvarado- Fernandez v. Mazoff, 151 So. 3d 8, 13 & n.8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“[T]he [Hague Service Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters commonly known as the] Hague Convention is expressly inapplicable in cases where the location of the person to be served is unknown.... [T]he Convention 'shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known." (quoting Hague Convention, art. 1, 20 U.S.T. 361, 1969 WL 97765 (1969))); §§ 48.161, 171, Fla. Stat.¹
1 Under the facts of this case, the substituted service of process was legally valid under both chapter 48, as amended by chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida, and the laws governing service of process in effect before January 2, 2023, which would have applied in the absence of chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida. See generally ch. 2025-13, § 5, Laws of Fla. (“(1) The amendments made to chapter 48, Florida Statutes, by chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida, apply to causes of action that accrued on or after January 2, 2023, and to all causes of action that accrued before January 2, 2023, for which service of process was effectuated on or after January 2, 2023. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any service of process that occurred between January 2, 2023, and October 1, 2025, which has not been invalidated by a court, is valid if such service complied with either chapter 48, Florida Statutes, as amended by chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida, or the
AFFIRMED.
MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
Edgardo Ferreyra and Christine N. Gargano, of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo, Cohen & Peterfriend, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
David L. Luck, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Miami, and Meranda S. Landes, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.