ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD ROSSMOORE, 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.
Atlas Van Lines appealed the denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for substituted service on a foreign corporation under Florida's long-arm statute. The court held that strict compliance with the notice provisions of § 48.161 is mandatory and that failure to provide notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect.
Strict compliance with the notice requirements of § 48.161 is absolutely required when serving a nonresident under the long-arm statute. The failure to send notice of service by registered or certified mail constitutes a jurisdictional defect that prevents the court from obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant.
[1] When substituted service of process is authorized by law on a nonresident by serving a public officer, notice of the service and a copy of the process must be sent forthw…
[2] Statutes authorizing substituted service of process on nonresidents and setting forth the method of such service must be read in pari materia.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Neither section is complete in itself and must, therefore, be read in pari materia with the other.”
Establishes that § 48.161 and § 48.181 must be read together, with § 48.161 setting forth the method for substituted service in all situations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtlas Van Lines, a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, was sued by Rossmoore. The plaintiff used substituted service under Florida's long-a…
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 Strict Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Atlas Van Lines, a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, brings this interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion to vacate 1 a default judgment in favor of appellee. We reverse.
The relevant facts are undisputed. Ap-pellee-plaintiff utilized the “substituted service” authorised by § 48.181, F.S.A., (the “long arm” statute) when suing a foreign corporation. That statute provides that corporations, and natural persons, doing business in the State of Florida, “appoint” the Secretary of State as their agent for service of process in actions arising out of their business. The complaint herein was related to the conduct of appellant’s business, so service on the Secretary of State was proper in the first instance.
Appellant does not contest the service of process on the Secretary of State, but rather complains that notice of such service was not sent to it pursuant to § 48.161, F.S.1971, F.S.A., which reads in pertinent part as follows:
“48.161 Method of substituted service on nonresident. — ■
When authorized by law, substituted service of process on a nonresident . by serving a public officer designated by law shall be made by leaving a copy of the process . . . with the public officer or in his office . The service is sufficient service on a defendant who has appointed the public officer as his agent for the service of process. Notice of service and a copy of the process shall he sent forthwith by registered or certified mail by the plaintiff or his attorney to the defendant (Italics added.)
Appellee admits that the “notice” portion of § 48.161 was not complied with but contends it need not be when service is had under § 48.181, supra. We find this position untenable. In the first place, § 48.181 merely authorises substituted service on nonresidents in certain situations (as does §§ 48.171, 48.182 and 48.19, F.S.1971,’ F.S.A. in other situations), while § 48.161, supra, by its terms sets forth the method of substituted service on nonresidents in all those situations. Neither section is complete in itself and must, therefore, be read in pari materia with the other.
Having found that appellee should have complied with the notice re*33quirements of § 48.161, we also have no difficulty in finding the omission a jurisdictional defect. The purpose of our “long arm” statutes is to subject certain nonresidents to the jurisdiction of Florida courts, not to trials without notice and opportunity to defend; strict compliance therewith is therefore absolutely required.2
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…y this section.” Statutes governing substituted service of process must be strictly construed and must be strictly complied with. American Liberty Insurance Company v. Maddox, 238 So. 2d 154 (Fla.2d D.C.A. 1970); Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Rossmoore, 271 So. 2d 31 (Fla.2d [*532] D.C.A. 1972). The term “usual place of abode” contained in Section 48.031, Florida Statutes (1975) means where the person is actually living at the time of service. State v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 496, 195 So. 145 (1940). Furthermore, a…
-
P. S. R. Assocs. v. Artcraft-Heath, 364 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…upon such nonresident pursuant to Section 48.194. Since neither of the statutory methods was completed or complied with in this case, jurisdiction over appellant was not perfected and, therefore, not secured. See Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Rossmoore, 271 So. 2d 31 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Golconda Corp. v. Newton, 336 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). This decision is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to controvert and retry the grounds for long arm jurisdiction alleged in the appellee’s complaint once…
-
Pelycado Onroerend Goed B.V. v. Ruthenberg, 635 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…erg had made the correct allegations, he still failed to meet the requirements of section 48.161 for effecting substitute service. Sections 48.161 and 48.-181 must be read together for service to be effective. See Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Rossmoore, 271 So. 2d 31, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). To be perfected, service must be had under one of the methods in section 48.161. P.S.R. Assocs. v. Artcraft-Heath, 364 So. 2d 855, 857-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). To meet the requirements of section 48.161, a notice of the substit…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parish Mortg. Corp. v. Lowry W. Davis and Guion T. De Loach, 251 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Am. Liberty Ins. Co. v. Maddox, 238 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)