DONALD A. CREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES R. ROHLFING, 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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where service of process under Florida's long-arm statute was defective. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate strict compliance with statutory service requirements because the defendant's return of undelivered mail could not be attributed to the defendant's concealment or rejection rather than innocent circumstances.
The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the evidence did not demonstrate strict compliance with the long-arm statute. The unsuccessful delivery of certified mail does not satisfy statutory service requirements when the failure to deliver may have resulted from innocent causes not attributable to the defendant's concealment or rejection of the mail, rather than from the defendant's deliberate avoidance of service.
[1] Substituted service under a long-arm statute is insufficient if the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant concealed their whereabouts or rejected certified mail cont…
[2] A defendant's failure to receive certified mail containing process, without evidence of rejection or concealment, renders service of process insufficient.
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“if the failure of delivery of process was not caused by the defendant-addressee's rejection of the mail and might have resulted from a cause not chargeable to the defendant, then the statute would not have been complied with and service of process would be insufficient”
Establishes the legal standard that strict compliance with service statutes requires showing the defendant caused or rejected the undelivered mail, not merely that it was undelivered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrews and his insurer were sued by Rohlfing for damages arising from a traffic accident in Dade County. Crews resided in Dade County at the time of th…
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 Concealment Of Whereabouts cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order by the trial court denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over his person, insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.
Appellant and his insurer were sued by the appellee as a result of a traffic accident in Dade County. At the time of the accident, appellant resided in Dade County. By affidavit, appellee’s counsel related that service of process was attempted in Dade County, but returned undelivered on June 25, 1971. An investigation uncovered a “possibility” that appellant was residing in Albany, Georgia. Substituted service was then made upon the secretary of state under the long-arm statute (F.S., Section 48.-161, F.S.A.), and a copy of the summons and complaint were mailed to the appellant in Albany by certified mail on October 28, 1971. However, this letter was returned undelivered on November 5, 1971 and was stamped, “Moved, Left No Address.” Thereafter, it was learned that appellant held a job in Albany from April 1 to April 28, 1971, when he summarily quit his job. Appellant later moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over his person, which the trial court denied and gave appellant ten days in which to file his answer. Appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the evidence does not show that he was concealing his whereabouts or that he rejected the certified letter addressed to him in Albany or refused to claim it. We think there is merit to this contention.
From appellee’s affidavit, it is clear that service upon appellant in Albany was attempted some seven months after he left his job there. If fact, service in Dade County was returned unexecuted approximately one month after the time appellant quit his job in Georgia. We do not think that these facts show that appellant was concealing his whereabouts, and is therefore distinguishable from a case which appellee has cited to us, Steedman v. Polero, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 202.
In addition, as we pointed out in Green v. Nashner, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So. 2d 492, if the failure of delivery of process was not caused by the defendant-addressee’s rejection of the mail and might have resulted from a cause not chargeable to the defendant, then the statute would not have been complied with and service of process would be insufficient. We stated in Green v. Nasher:
“From the record it appears that the appellee failed to show any connection between the defendant and the address to which she chose to send the letter containing process. There may well be such a connection, but where service of process is based upon strict compliance with a statute, strict compliance must be shown.” (Citation omitted.)
The facts in the instant cause are similar to the facts in Green v. Nasher, and we think that case is determinative.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the order denying the defendant’s motion is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of an order quashing service and for such further proceedings as the trial court may deem proper. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canzoniero v. Canzoniero, 305 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…e the court jurisdiction. McGee v. McGee, 156 Fla. 346, 22 So. 2d 788 (1945); Gribbel v. Henderson, 151 Fla. 712, 10 So. 2d 734 (1942), aff’d 153 Fla. 397, 14 So. 2d 809 (1943); McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820 (1926); Crews v. Rohlfing, 285 So. 2d 433 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Naples Park-Vanderbilt Beach Water District v. Downing, 244 So. 2d 464 (2d D.C. A.Fla.1971); Gmaz v. King, 238 So. 2d 511 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1970); Green v. Nashner, 216 So. 2d 492 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968). Further, the court should satis…
-
Turcotte v. Graves, 374 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…by the defendant-addressee’s rejection of the mail and where such failure might have resulted from a cause not chargeable to the defendant, then the statutory requirements have not been met and service of process is insufficient. Crews v. Rohlfing, 285 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The record shows that the process was mailed to the address of the burned-out mobile home although attorney for plaintiff knew that Ms. Turcotte no longer resided there. Furthermore, we doubt that Ms. Turcotte purposely burned he…
-
Cortez Dev. Co. v. NEW York Cap. Grp., Inc., 401 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ngston v. Fein, 359 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), in light of other evidence before it showing that (a) the address of Rosenberg was correct according to other records and information received from persons at that address, compare Crews v. Rohlfing, 285 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Green v. Nashner, 216 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (no showing of connection between defendant and address to which letter sent); and (b) Rosenberg, in October 1980, had succeeded in quashing an earlier service accepted by anoth…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Green v. Eugenie Nashner, 216 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Steedman v. Polero, 181 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)