HERMAN FIEDELBAUM, APPELLANT,
v.
MORRIS LAPIDUS, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the appellant through substituted service of process, and that substantial compliance with statutory notice requirements was sufficient.
Appellant sought to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to establish he was doing business in …
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 Return Receipt Requested cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Herman Fiedelbaum,1 by this interlocutory appeal, seeks to reverse an order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The main question for determination is whether the appellant was subject to substituted service of process, under § 47.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
Appellant contends .that the trial court had before it only appellee’s unverified complaint and appellant’s sworn statements in support of the motion to dismiss, and based on this evidence the court could not have found that appellant was doing business in Florida. We can not agree.
Our review of the record convinces us that the facts shown are sufficient to meet the requirements of § 47.16.2
Appellant further contends that the failure of appellee to file the return receipt nullifies the service by publication. We find this contention to be without merit, inasmuch as, there was substantial compliance with the statute (47.30 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). It is evident that notice to the defendant, as required by the statute, was accomplished.3
For the reasons stated, we hold that the Circuit Court of Dade County acquired jurisdiction of the defendant by the service of process obtained under the statutes.
The order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. Evert H. Chamberlain, 201 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…will not prevent the Court from obtaining jurisdiction over such owner or operator. A failure to file a return receipt within itself does not nullify service, if there is substantial compliance with the statute. Fiedelbaum v. Lapidus, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 334. In Steedman v. Polero, Fla.App.1965, 181 So. 2d 202, it appears from the order under review: “This Cause arises out of an automobile accident and is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Quash Substituted Service under Section 47.29, Florid…
-
Bernabe Somoza v. Marcial Solis, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…257 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Horace v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 251 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); duPont v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). See Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fiedelbaum v. Lapidus, 163 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).…
Authorities Cited
- WM. E. Strasser Constr. Corp. v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1957)
- Cherry v. Heffernan, 132 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1938)
- Matthews v. Olive M. Matthews, 122 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Woodring v. Crown Eng'g Co., 141 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)