X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 16 / 26

65 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 26

Finally, the Fourth District cases of Berchtold v.Griffin,

592 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Kennedy v. Richmond, 512

So.

2d

1129

Br.

at

11.

(Fla.

4th

Berchtold

DCA

1987)

reversed

a

lend

Shurman

no

support.

summary

judgment

where

See,

there

was

no notice of the hearing provided to the losing party, an issue

not

relevant

in

this

case.

Berchtold,

592

So.

2d

377.

Kennedy

involved service of process on the defendant by serving his

business partner who was not shown to be authorized to accept

service

on

the

defendant's

behalf.

Id.

at

1130.

In

this

case,

it was Shurman's wife who was served with process at their usual

place of abode, a valid form of substitute service under

§

48.031,

Florida

Statutes.

Neither

Kennedy

nor

Berchtold,

therefore, conflict with the Fifth District's decision below such

that this Court's discretionary jurisdiction could be invoked.

Since there is no express and direct conflict between the

opinion below and the cases cited by Shurman (or located by

Atlantic) to support a conflict, this Court lacks discretionary

jurisdiction

to

hear

this

case.

See,

Fla.

Const.

Art.

V,

§

3(b);

Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2).

  • II.

    THE FIFTH DISTRICT CORRECTLY UPHELD THE LOWER COURT'S DENIAL OF SHURMAN'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ON HIS WIFE AT HIS PLACE OF ABODE CONSTITUTED VALID SERVICE.

    • A.

      The Fifth District correctly concluded that "usual place of abode" means where the party voluntarily resided prior to incarceration and where his family

9

Document info
Document views65
Page views65
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 22:35:51 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments