LUDLUM ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A RAMADA INN, APPELLANT,
v.
OUTDOOR MEDIA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Ludlum Enterprises appealed the denial of its motion to quash service of process, arguing that service was improper under Florida's corporate service statute. The court held that service must strictly comply with the statutory hierarchy of corporate officers and cannot rely on informal delivery through a desk clerk to a superior officer.
Service of process was invalid. Florida Statute Section 48.081 requires strict compliance with a hierarchical procedure, and service must be made upon superior officers before resorting to inferior officers or agents. The absence of superior officers is a condition precedent to valid service upon an inferior officer.
[1] Service of process on a corporation must strictly comply with statutory requirements regarding the order of individuals upon whom process may be served.
[2] A return of service upon an inferior corporate officer or agent is invalid unless it demonstrates the absence of all superior officers designated by statute.
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“a return showing service upon an inferior officer or agent of a corporation, in order to bind the corporation, must show the absence of all officers of a superior class designated in the statute as those upon whom service shall be had, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class. The absence of all members of a superior class is a condition precedent to the validity of service upon a member of an inferior class.”
Establishes the strict compliance requirement for corporate service of process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceService on Ludlum Enterprises was attempted by delivering a copy of the initial pleading to Patrick Townley, a desk clerk at defendant's hotel. Townle…
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 Motion To Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Ludlum Enterprises, takes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion to quash service of process.
We believe the motion was improperly denied. We therefore reverse.
After filing an amended complaint, service on defendant corporation was attempted, by delivering a true copy of the initial pleading to Patrick Townley, Agent. Patrick Townley was a desk clerk at defendant’s hotel. Townley then delivered the material to the president of defendant corporation.
Defendant moved to quash service of process based on noncompliance with Section 48.081, F.S.1969, F.S.A., which reads, in part, as follows:
“48.081 Service on corporations.—
“(1) Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
“(a) On the president or vice-president, or other head of the corporation; and in his absence:
“(b) On the cashier, treasurer, secretary or general manager; and in the absence of all of the above:
“(c) On any director; and in the absence of all of the above:
“(d) On any officer or business agent residing in the state.”
There had been no showing of the absence of any of the persons enumerated by the *650statute upon whom process could be served. Yet the motion was denied.
We feel that the statute in question should be strictly construed. Valid service of process upon a domestic corporation can only be effected by compliance with Section 48.081, F.S.1969, F.S.A. Florida Medical Association, Inc. v. Spires, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 756. Strict compliance is accomplished according to language in Largay Enterprises Inc. v. Berman, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 366, in the following manner:
“ * * * it is established in this jurisdiction that ‘a return showing service • upon an inferior officer or agent of a corporation, in order to bind the corporation, must show the absence of all officers of a superior class designated in the statute as those upon whom service shall be had, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class. The absence of all members of a superior class is a condition precedent to the validity of service upon a member of an inferior class.’ Drew Lumber Co. v. Walter, supra.” [45 Fla. 252, 34 So. 244, 1903]
Further, it is not true, as plaintiff contends, that the purpose of the statute is only to insure the proper result; i. e., the proper officer eventually learning of the suit. Its purpose is to insure notice as high on the corporate heirarchy as possible. Relying on a desk clerk’s relay of service does not reach the degree of insurance and efficiency which is normally expected in the legal process. This is amply set out in Imperial Towers, Incorporated v. Dade Home Services, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 518 (Section 47.17, F.S.A.1965 is the predecessor of the current statute).
“ ‘The obvious purpose of this statute [§ 47.17, F.S.A.] is to have the service made upon some one who is held responsible by the corporation and it contemplates that service shall be made, whenever possible, upon the more responsible officers before resorting to service upon one of the inferior officers or agents of the corporation. Cherry Lake Farms v. Love, 129 Fla. 469, 176 So. 486; Grady v. Electric Bond & Share Co., 137 Fla. 793, 189 So. 18. This objective is based on good sense and sound' reason. For example, one possible objection which has b.een raised to Rule 4(d) (3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is that unless the plaintiff is compelled to serve the officers and agents holding the more responsible positions, when it is possible to do so, plaintiffs will serve those with less responsibility in the hope that the information will not be transmitted to the proper corporate officers, thus resulting in a default judgment. * * * ‘[National Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots v. Banks, 5th Cir. 1952, 196 F.2d 428]”
In conclusion, we hold that Section 48.081, F.S.1969, F.S.A., was not strictly construed and service of process was therefore faulty. We reverse.
Reversed.
REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sierra Holding, Inc. v. INN Keepers Supply Co., 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…6 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Carton, Inc. v. Lindy’s of Omni, Inc., 408 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Dade Erection Service, Inc. v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 379 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Ludlum Enterprises, Inc. v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 250 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Absent strict compliance, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation. Florida Medical Assn., Inc. v. Spires, 153 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Here, process was served on Charles Drago, an alleged em…
-
Dade Erection Serv., Inc. v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 379 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…1 provide the exclusive means of effecting service of process on an active corporation,5 and these provisions must be strictly construed. Drew Lumber Company v. Walter, 45 Fla. 252, 34 So. 244 (1903); Ludlum Enterprises, Inc. v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 250 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Strict compliance with Section 48.081 requires that a return which shows service upon an inferior officer or agent must demonstrate that all members of a superior class could not first be served. This is a condition precedent to…
-
The MAC Org., Inc. v. Harry Rich Corp., 374 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ervice of process, there must be strict compliance with the applicable statute. See, e. g., Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Rotocast Plastic Products, Inc., 341 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Ludlum Enterprises, Inc. v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 250 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Our review of the record shows that the summons and complaint in this action were served on Joseph Conti on July 18, 1978. However, contrary to the finding of the trial court, in our opinion, at the time of this service Conti ha…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cherry Lake Farms, Inc. v. Hon. E. C. Love, 129 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1937)
- Largay Enters. Inc. v. Berman, 61 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1952)
- Drew Lumber Co. v. Scotia Walter, 45 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1903)
- Grady v. Elec. Bond & Share Co., 137 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1939)
- Fla. Med. Ass'n, Inc. v. Spires, 153 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Nat'l Org. Masters v. Banks, 196 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1952)
- Imperial Towers v. Dade Home Servs., Inc., 199 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)