X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 15 / 26

90 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 26

clear that they are factua

lly distinguishable, do not support

Shurman's position, and do

not establish a conflict.

For instance, the cou

rt in Hovarth v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,

634 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th D

CA 1994) simply held that valid process

was not effected where the

person served did not actually reside

in the defendant's place o

f abode as required by § 48.031,

Florida

Statutes

Id.

at

2

40.

In

this

case,

it

is

undisputed

that Shurman's wife did re

side in Shurman's place of abode, so

Hovarth is inapposite.

The cases of Floyd v.

Federal Nat'l Mortgage Assn., 704 So.

2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998

) and Wagner v. Vigor Island Corp., 443

So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1

984)

are

also

of

no

help.

Floyd

addressed whether there wa

s proper constructive service of

process on a decedent's heirs under provisions

of chapter 49 of

the

Florida

Statutes.

Floyd,

704

So.

2d

1110.

Wagner involved

reversal of a summary judgment entered against

a party who had

not

been

given

notice

of

the

hearing.

Wagner,

443 So. 2d at 470.

Since this action addresses service of process

under the

substitute service provisions of § 48.031, Florida Statutes,

nothing in Floyd can be deemed inconsistent with the Fifth

decision

in

service

of

District's

not

address

this

case.

process

at

Likewise,

the

all.

As

such,

Wagner

case

neither

case

did

creates any type of intra-district conflict with the Fifth

District's opinion appealed from here.

8

Document info
Document views90
Page views90
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 05:25:54 UTC 2017
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments