BRIAN SYMONETTE
v.
OLGA D. LOZANO
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.
Appellant Brian Symonette appeals orders dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice and quashing service of process on certain defendants. Three appellees filed a confession of error regarding the dismissal order, leading the court to reverse that portion and remand for an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The court affirmed the quashing of service orders and dismissed the appeal regarding denial of a motion for default judgment.
The court reversed the order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice and remanded for the trial court to provide appellant an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint, as three appellees conceded the dismissal was error. The court affirmed the orders granting motions to quash service of process on CNA Surety and Ruiz, as service was not properly perfected on either defendant.
[1] Service of process on a surety must comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes section 624.422-23, and service is improper if it fails to meet those statutory requi…
[2] Personal service of process under Florida Statutes section 48.031 requires that the defendant be personally served or that the address be the defendant's usual place of a…
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“acknowledg[ing] that the decision below was in error in granting the Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice”
Joint statement filed by appellees confessing error in the trial court's dismissal order.
Symonette filed suit against multiple defendants including Cristina Santamaria, The Keyes Company, CNA Surety, Budget Notary Services, and Alex Ruiz. …
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 Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 19-025360.
Brian Symonette, Sr., Moore Haven, pro se. Edward Etcheverry and Steve Kerbel of Etcheverry Harrison, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee CNA Surety.
Timothy B. Elliott of Smith & Associates, Tallahassee, for appellee Budget Notary Services.
Bruce I. Kamelhair of Friedlander & Kamelhair, Pembroke Pines, for appellees The Keyes Company and Cristina Santamaria.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order granting appellees Cristina Santamaria’s and The Keyes Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. He also appeals the orders granting motions to quash service of process on appellees CNA Surety and Alex Ruiz.
Appellees Budget Notary Services, Inc., Santamaria, and Keyes have filed a joint statement of “confession of error,” “acknowledg[ing] that the decision below was in error in granting the Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice[.]” They agree that appellant should be given “additional time to attempt to correct his complaint and file and [sic] amended plead[ing].”
Pursuant to the concession, we reverse the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and remand for the trial court to provide appellant with an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint.
As to the motions to quash service of process on appellees CNA Surety and Ruiz, we affirm.1 Service on CNA did not comport with section 624.422-23, Florida Statutes (2020). And Ruiz filed an unopposed affidavit stating that he was not personally served with process, and the address on the service was not his “usual place of abode.” See § 48.031, Fla. Stat. (2020). Thus, service was not perfected on Ruiz.
Appellant also appeals the denial of his motion for default final judgment against Santamaria. That is a non-appealable non-final order. See Westwood One, Inc. v. Flight Express, Inc., 940 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). We dismiss the appeal on that issue.
Reversed as to order granting motion to dismiss with prejudice; affirmed as to the orders granting motion to quash service; appeal dismissed as to the denial of the motion for default final judgment. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rufino Hernandez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 32 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Guinade v. State, 940 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)