X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 13 / 26

69 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

13 / 26

R1:113, Exhibit "A."

Neither Shurman nor his wife disputed that service was made

on

him

in

this

manner

during

the

trial

court

proceedings.

R1:71,

151-52;

A.2,

p.6,

13.

Shurman

nevertheless

now

asserts

that

his

family home was not his "usual place of abode" within the

statute's meaning because he was in prison when the service was

effected.

The

trial

court

rejected

Shurman's

contention,

holding

service

was

valid

under

the

statute.

R1:151-154.

The

Fifth

District

affirmed.

R2:7-10.

Shurman argues that this holding conflicts with State ex rel

Merritt v. Heffernan, 195 So. 145 (Fla. 1945), a case that

involved

a

vacationing

northerner

rather

than

a

prisoner.

There,

service on the defendant was deemed valid when it was made on the

defendant's wife (when the defendant was traveling to another

state) at their vacation home where the family was staying, even

though the defendant's permanent residence was in another state.

In upholding service, the Court found that the defendant's place

of abode (versus his residence) was where his family was living,

especially since there was no evidence that he did not intend to

return

to

the

family's

vacation

home.

Id.

at

147-49.

Heffernan, then, is legally consistent with the Fifth

District's decision in this action and does not create conflict

jurisdiction.

Here,

Shurman

was

residing

in

prison,

but

his

place of abode was where he had lived with his family before he

6

Document info
Document views69
Page views69
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 08:15:56 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments