Finally, the Fourth District cases of Berchtold v.Griffin,
592 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Kennedy v. Richmond, 512
no notice of the hearing provided to the losing party, an issue
involved service of process on the defendant by serving his
business partner who was not shown to be authorized to accept
it was Shurman's wife who was served with process at their usual
place of abode, a valid form of substitute service under
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
Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2).
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.
The Fifth District correctly concluded that "usual place of abode" means where the party voluntarily resided prior to incarceration and where his family