X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - page 24 / 26

71 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

24 / 26

absent from it

.

Shurman's

failure to receive act

ual notice of the suit was

not the result

of some constitutional

infirmity in the substitute

service statut

e, but instead was the

result of his wife's failure

to tell him ab

out

the

suit.

As

such,

since Atlantic literally

complied with

the requirements of § 4

8.031(1)(a), its service of

substitute pro

cess on Shurman was val

therefore had

jurisdiction over him a

motion to set

aside the default seven

id.

The

trial

court

nd properly denied his

months after the final

judgment of fo

reclosure was entered.

The Fifth District's order

upholding that

decision was correct a

nd should be affirmed.

III. ANY NEW RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED SHOULD BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY ONLY.

If the Court accepts Shurman's interpretation o

f the service

of process statute, such a decision should be applie

d

prospectively

only.

A

newly-created

judicial

except

ion for

prisoners to the service of process requirements can

not be

retroactively applied to Atlantic because it had no

notice of it

at

the

time

it

served

process

on

Shurman.

See,

Inte

rnational

Studio Apartment Association Inc. v. Lockwood, 421 S

o. 2d 1119,

1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. den., 430 So 2d 451 (

Fla. 1983),

cert. den., 464 U.S. 895 (1983) (where rights and po

sitions of

parties acting in reliance on statute or constructio

n of statute

upon new construction of statute, decision should be

applied

17

Document info
Document views71
Page views71
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 06:46:14 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs1566
Words5006

Comments