X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 23 / 26

70 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

23 / 26

it require

s only procedures

reasonabl

y designe

d to give

defendants

notice. Id. (sub

stitute se

rvice sta

tutes have been

upheld aga

inst attack on du

e process

grounds (

citing Milliken v.

Meyer, 311

U.S. 457 (1940))

; complian

ce with s

uch statutes is

valid meth

od of acquiring j

urisdictio

n over de

fendant even if

defendant

did not receive a

ctual noti

ce); Chan

g, 109 F.R.D. at

Statutes

(1998), p

rovides strong

served wil

l actuall

y be delivered to

is enough.

Due pro

cess does not

lsom, 306

So. 2d at

187-88. Instead,

years prior to incarceration, who were still married at the time

15, § 48.0

31(1)(a), Florida

assurances

that the papers

the named

defendant. That

those who, like Shurman, lived in their family home for many

require pe

rfect

notice.

Fo

process

given

these

safeguards.

This

is

especially

true

for

670.

In the end, Shurman's incarceration does not violate due

of service and whose family still lived in that same home.

8

Since Shurman clearly never intended to establish a place of

abode anywhere other than where he had lived previously and where

his family continued to live after he was incarcerated, that home

remained his "place of abode" even though he was temporarily

8

Although personal service on Shurman in prison may have been an

alternative, it Statutes (1998)

was not required.

See, § 48.051, Florida

(process

to

be

served

on

prisoner).

As

the

Fifth

District noted, § 48.051 simply provides that prisoners are to

be

served in the same manner as other natural persons.

R2:7

n.1;

A.1. Other natural substitute service.

persons can be served in person or § 48.031, Florida Statues (1998).

by

16

Document info
Document views70
Page views70
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 16:12:32 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments