YINTO BEJAR AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ZENAIDA GARCIA, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to quash service of process against a non-resident defendant in a motor vehicle accident case. The court found the service defective because the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory requirements for serving non-residents and failed to allege the defendant's non-resident status in the complaint.
The service of process was defective and the motion to quash should have been granted. The plaintiff's failure to properly send notice and copy of process by registered or certified mail with return receipt, combined with the failure to allege the defendant's non-resident status in the complaint, were both fatal deficiencies that violated Florida's non-resident service statutes.
[1] Service of process on a non-resident driver involved in a Florida accident is defective if the plaintiff fails to send notice of service and a copy of the process by regi…
[2] A complaint seeking to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident driver involved in a Florida accident must allege that the driver is a non-resident of Florida.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the plaintiff Garcia did not make a proper showing that she sent as required by law a notice of service and a copy of the process to the defendant Bejar by registered or certified mail as evidenced by the defendant's return receipt”
Establishes first fatal deficiency: improper service method lacking required return receipt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZenaida Garcia filed suit in Dade County Circuit Court against Yinto Bejar for injuries arising from an automobile accident in Dade County, Florida. B…
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.
HUBBART, Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to review an order denying the defendant Yinto Bejar’s motion to quash service of process upon him as a non-resident of Florida in an action filed before the Dade County Circuit Court. The plaintiff Zenaida Garcia alleged in her complaint that she was injured in an automobile accident when her motor vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant Bejar in Dade County, Florida, The defendant Be-jar joined by his insurer State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company contends on appeal that the purported service upon him as a non-resident was defective under Sections 48.161, 48.171, Florida Statutes (1975). We agree.
The plaintiff Garcia did not make a proper showing that she sent as required by law a notice of service and a copy of the process to the defendant Bejar by registered or certified mail as evidenced by the defendant’s return receipt. Leviten v. Gaunt, 347 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
Moreover, the plaintiff Garcia also failed to allege in her complaint as required by law that the defendant Bejar as the driver of one of the automobiles involved in the accident was a non-resident of Florida sufficient to invoke personal jurisdiction over said defendant. See Palmer Johnson Yachts v. Ray Richard, Inc., 347 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Joyce Bros. Storage and Van Co. v. Piechalak, 343 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Esberger v.
First Florida Business Consultants, Inc., 338 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Both of the above deficiencies are fatal to the purported service of process in this cause. The order under review is accordingly reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turcotte v. Graves, 374 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…tatute. The complaint in the instant case did not contain the necessary allegations to constitute the Secretary of State as Deborah Turcotte’s agent for substituted service of process, and therefore the service is fatally defective. Bejar v. Garcia, 354 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Secondly, Section 48.161, Florida Statutes, requires that the process be sent to the defendant via certified or registered mail, the receipt of which must be evidenced by the…
-
Logan v. Vita Mora, 555 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e plaintiff or his attorney of compliance shall be filed on or before the return day of the process. § 48.161, Fla.Stat. (1987). Failure to file a return receipt of registered or certified mail is fatal to valid service of process. Bejar v. Garcia, 354 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Leviten v. Gaunt, 347 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Applying these principles, we conclude that Logan was not served in accordance with the statute. Although the Secretary of…
-
Permenter v. Feurtado, 541 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…fs failed to sustain the burden of diligent search and inquiry sufficient to sustain substituted service of process, see Robinson v. Cornelius, 377 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bejar v. Garcia, 354 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Green v. Nashner, 216 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), the defendant’s motion to quash service and vacate default should have been granted. Reversed and remanded.…
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
- Esberger v. First Fla. Bus. Consultants, Inc., 338 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Lendsay v. Polk F. Cotton and Betty Anne Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Zarcone v. Lesser, 190 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Joyce Bros. Storage & VAN Co. v. Piechalak, 343 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Palmer Johnson Yachts v. RAY Richard, Inc., 347 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Leviten v. Gaunt, 347 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)