X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 20 / 26

91 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

20 / 26

Shurman's suggestion that this Cour

t disregard where his family

resided at the time of the service

(Br. at 13) is discredited by

the very case upon which Shurman re

lies.

Shurman also suggests, however

, that service was not proper

on him via his wife because they we

re not living together and she

Heffernan case discussed above with

jurisdiction, quoting from a New Je

abode means one's fixed place of re

when

the

service

is

made."

Heffern

Shurman argues that "for the time b

was prison because that is where he

effected.

Br.

at

13,

19.

But

a

fa

that the court focused on where one

one happens to be at the time of se

was not informed of the contents of

(Br.

at

20,

21).

The

statutory

lan

his 'living together' claim, howeve

comes not from § 48.031(1)(a), the

depends, but on § 48.031(2)(a), whi

case.

See,

§

48.031(2)(a),

Florida

service on spouse permitted anywher

requests it and spouses are living

evidence to support Shurman's other

not informed of the contents of the

13

respect to conflict

rsey case which held "the word

sidence for the time being

an, 195 So. at 499-500.

eing" must mean that his abode

was when service was

ir reading of Heffernan shows

's home truly is, not on where

rvice.

the papers served on her.

Id.

at

148.

Thus,

guage Shurman relies on for

r, is not applicable -- it

statute upon which this case

ch is not at issue in this

Statutes (1998) (substitute

e in county when spouse

together).

There

is

no

contention that his wife was

papers

served

on

her.

To

the

Document info
Document views91
Page views91
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 06:49:01 UTC 2017
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments