J. E. S., APPELLANT,
v.
B. J. F., 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.
Jurisdiction to determine paternity cannot be acquired over a nonresident defendant through constructive service by publication.
Plaintiff sued a nonresident defendant for paternity and attempted service by publication. The defendant moved to quash service and dismiss for lack 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 Personal Service cases and more on FLexlaw
In this interlocutory appeal, appellant-defendant, J. E. S., attacks the trial court’s order finding the court to have jurisdiction over the defendant to determine paternity in a suit filed by appellee-plaintiff, B. J. F.
Plaintiff attempted service of process upon the defendant, a nonresident of Florida, by publication in a newspaper. The defendant through special appearance promptly moved to quash and set aside the service of process and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
The sole issue before us is whether jurisdiction to determine the question of paternity can be acquired in a paternity suit through constructive service by publication on the defendant.
Our court has recently treated this subject in T. J. K. v. N. B., Fourth District Court of Appeal, 237 So.2d 592, opinion filed July 17, 1970, by determining that a paternity action is one “in personam,” and concluding:
“* * * A judgment in .personam against a nonresident who does not enter a voluntary general appearance or otherwise waive personal service of process can be predicated only upon jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident acquired by proper personal service of process upon him within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.”
In this instance, these requirements were not met, and defendant’s motions to quash and dismiss should have been granted.
*521Accordingly, the order finding the court to have jurisdiction to determine paternity is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myriam Campo v. Tafur, 704 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…smissed the counts for paternity and child support because it lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Under Florida law, a paternity action requires personal jurisdiction over the putative father before the action may be maintained. J.E.S. v. B.J.F., 240 So. 2d 520, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Tafur does not refute that Campo perfected personal service of her original petition upon him while he was in Florida visiting the minor children. This was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him. § 48.031, Fla.…
-
Hyder Raleigh Davie v. Calton, 453 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…illiams v. Richardson, 432 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also McAlice v. Kirsch, 368 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Callaghan v. Callaghan, 337 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); J.E.S. v. B.J.F., 240 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Since, as the appellee concedes, the setting aside of the final judgment of paternity makes viable the appellant’s motion to require the appellee and the child to submit to tests to determine their blood types, the denial of th…
Authorities Cited
- T. J. K. v. N. B., 237 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)