X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 22 / 26

66 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 26

Speer v. Wooddell, 340 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)

(service on an individual who lived with the defendant for more

than one year found to be effective substituted service); Barnett

Bank of Clearwater N.A. v. Folsom, 306 So. 2d 186, 187-88 (Fla.

2d DCA 1975) (service on the wife of the defendant held valid

substitute service even where defendant was never actually

notified of the lawsuit).

B.

The

requirements of due

process

were

met

in

this

case.

Shurman finally urges reversal of the decision below on the

basis that the substituted service on him violated due process.

As he sees it, he "cannot be held responsible for his estranged

wife's failure to inform him that a complaint was filed against

him."7

Br.

at

23.

Shurman,

thus,

asks

this

Court

to

read

into

the substitute service statute (or create) an exception for

incarcerated prisoners whose family members do not

inform them of

lawsuits served in their absence.

No such exception is necessary, or warranted.

The statute

contains due process safeguards for all persons, including

prisoners.

Requiring

that

service

be

accomplished

where

a

party

has made his home and where his family resides, on a person who

actually lives in that place of abode and who is over the age of

7 Although Shurman refers to his wife as "estranged" there is no record evidence that she was at the time of service or that Atlantic had any reason to know this if it was in fact true.

15

Document info
Document views66
Page views66
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 16:41:10 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments