X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 14 / 26

59 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

14 / 26

was imprisoned, where his family continued to reside and where he

presumably

intended

to

return

after

his

release.

Although

Shurman may have "resided" somewhere else, he did not voluntarily

establish

any

place

of

abode

other

than

his

family

home.

See,

Minick v. Minick, 149 So. 483, 488 (Fla. 1933) (suggesting "usual

place of abode" is synonymous of "domicile" rather than

"residence").

Shurman is also wrong in claiming that the Fifth Circuit

decision below conflicts with that of Page v. Hollingsworth, 157

So.

887

(Fla.

1934).

The

Page

Court

addressed

a

statute

that

required service of process on prisoners to include service on

the

commissioner

of

agriculture.

Page,

157

So.

at

290.

The

requirements of the statute (which has been repealed) were not

met

when

the

plaintiff

failed

to

serve

the

commissioner.

Id.

Here, Atlantic complied with the objective requirements of the

substitute

service

statute.

§

48.031(1)(a),

Florida

Statutes.

Shurman just does not like the construction of "usual place of

abode."

Shurman next cites several Fifth District opinions that he

deems in conflict with the Fifth District's opinion in this case.

Br.

at

11.

The

first

problem

with

his

position

is

that

intra-

district conflict is not a basis for this Court's discretionary

jurisdiction.

See,

Fla.

Const.

Art.

V,

§

3(b);

Rule

9.030(a)(2),

Fla.R.App.P.

Further,

when

the

cases

are

read

with

care,

it

is

7

Document info
Document views59
Page views59
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 20:59:18 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments