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").
courts considering the issue under the federal rule have
consistently held that incarceration does not change one'
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.
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
therefore, was perfectly valid, R1:152, and the Fifth District
Shurman nevertheless advances several additional grounds to