X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 21 / 26

64 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

21 / 26

contrary, the record below makes clear that the process server

told

her

of

the

nature

of

the

papers

being

served.

R1:113,

Exhibit "A."

Shurman's real complaint appears to be founded upon his

wife's

failure

to

tell

him

about

the

lawsuit.

The

rationale

behind permitting substitute service in the first instance though

is founded on the presumption that someone living at the

defendant's place of abode who is over the age of fifteen (15)

will

tell

the

defendant

about

service

of

the

action.

6

Cf.,

Clark

v. Clark, 30 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 1947) (process insufficient

where shown no member of defendant's family knew where he was

located).

Neither

the

service

of

process

statute

nor

due

process

requires a plaintiff to make sure that this notification in fact

occurs.

Thus,

when

Atlantic

complied

with

§

48.031,

Florida

Statutes, by serving someone over 18 years of age (his wife)

living at Shurman's place of abode, it was valid service even if

Shurman

did

not

receive

actual

notice.

§

48.031(1)(a),

Florida

Statutes

(1998).

See,

also,

Magazine

v.

Bedoya,

475

So.

2d

1035,

1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (service on defendant's mother-in-law

during a six week stay at the defendant's residence held valid);

6 After all, where one's family lives is a reliable measure of where one's usual place of abode really is versus where one declares it to be in challenging service of process. Shurman's construction of the service of process statute is not only illogical, but unworkable in light of the effort lenders would be forced to expend to ascertain whether (and where) any given defendant is incarcerated.

14

Document info
Document views64
Page views64
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 12:24:26 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments