X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 19 / 26

55 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 26

Fed.R.Civ.P. (service of process can be made pursuant to state

law or by leaving a copy of the complaint and summons "at the

individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some

person of suitable age and discretion residing therein").

Those

courts considering the issue under the federal rule have

consistently held that incarceration does not change one'

s place

of

abode.

E.g.,

Blue

Cross

and

Blue

Shield

of

Michigan

v.

Chang,

109 F.R.D. 669, 670 (E.D. Mich. 1986) (subscribing to holdings in

Bohland and Davis); U.S. v. Davis, 60 F.R.D. 187, 188 (D. Neb.

1973) ("when person is imprisoned, his family residence, if any,

remains his usual place of abode"); Bohland v. Smith, 7 F.R.D.

364,

365

(E.D.

Ill.

1947).

Shurman

advances

no

cogent

reason

to

apply a different logic here.

Since Shurman and his wife agree that he had resided at the

subject property for twelve years before his imprisonment and his

family continued to reside at the property well after he was

imprisoned, R1:152; R2:9; A.2, p. 13, 21, the trial court

properly concluded that Shurman's former home was his "usual

place of abode" within the meaning of § 48.031(1)(a), Florida

Statute.

Substituted

service

upon

his

wife

at

their

home,

therefore, was perfectly valid, R1:152, and the Fifth District

correctly

affirmed

this

conclusion.

R2:10.

Shurman nevertheless advances several additional grounds to

urge

a

contrary

ruling

here.

First,

he

points

to

language

in

the

12

Document info
Document views55
Page views55
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 10:05:25 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments