ALLSTATE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS TRANSFER, INC.
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC
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.
Service of process that is regular on its face is presumed valid and cannot be impeached by uncorroborated denial; the party challenging service must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
[1] Service of process appearing regular on its face is presumed valid, and a party seeking to invalidate such service must present clear and convincing evidence rather than…
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“Service which is regular on its face is presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. Furthermore, a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present 'clear and convincing evidence' to corroborate his denial of service.”
Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
Allstate Mortgage Solutions Transfer, Inc. appealed from a non-final order in a case involving Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. The appellants sought to quas…
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 Presumption Of Valid Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[Service] which is regular on its face is presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. Furthermore, a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his denial of service.”) (quoting Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); Morales L. Grp., P.A. v. Rodman, 305 So. 3d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Because [the appellant] did not submit any evidence challenging the facts contained in the return of service, the [appellant] did not meet its burden.”); Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818, 818–19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming “the order of the trial court denying appellants’ respective motions to quash service of process” where “[appellant] sought to attack the service of process with uncorroborated affidavits” and concluding “appellants have not sustained their high burden of demonstrating the invalidity of their service”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Telf Corp. v. Ivon Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Leyda Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)