Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

August 14, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Default — Vacation — Defective service of process

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1880a

Civil procedure — Default — Vacation — Defective service of process — Substitute service — Error to deny motion to vacate default and default final judgment entered in forfeiture action where defendant filed affidavits stating that defendant did not, at time of service, live with the person on whom service was made, and plaintiff failed to provide competing evidence to overcome these assertions
 
GEORGE LUIS TORIBIO, Appellant, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D14-4758. August 12, 2015. Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Thomas H. Barkdull, III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014CA006188XXXMB. Counsel: Ryan V. Kadyszewski of Ryan V. Kadyszewski, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and John Olea of Olea, Porcella & Coleman, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant. Dana Collier Herst, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

 

(PER CURIAM.) George Luis Toribio appeals a trial court order that denied his motion to vacate a default final judgment against him in a forfeiture action. We reverse and remand because the City of West Palm Beach did not prove that substitute service of process was properly made on him.

 

A judgment entered based on invalid service of process is void. Weiss v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enter., 935 So. 2d 69, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), requires that the person be served or that the process server leave “copies at [the person’s] usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents.” The return of service form in this case indicates that service was made on Rosa Castillo, Toribio’s girlfriend, at an identified address. The City demonstrated that the return of service was regular on its face, meeting its initial burden. The burden then shifted to Toribio to make a prima facie showing by clear and convincing evidence that the substitute service was invalid. Baker v. Stearns Bank, N.A., 84 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

 

After an earlier court order due to Castillo’s stabbing of Toribio, he met this burden by filing affidavits in support of his motion to vacate default and final default judgment. In his affidavit, he stated that he did not reside with Castillo when service was attempted. Castillo filed an affidavit stating that Toribio was not living with her at the time of service and that she had been prohibited from having contact with him earlier by court order. A third affidavit was filed by Megan D’Angelo who averred that at the time substitute service was attempted on Castillo, Toribio was living with D’Angelo at a different address. She said he took up residence with her to recuperate from injuries after having been stabbed by Castillo.

 

With the prima facie showing of substituted service thereby rebutted, the City had the burden “to provide competing evidence” to overcome Toribio’s demonstrations. Id. at 1126. The process server testified at an evidentiary hearing that Toribio told him to meet at the identified address and that he would accept service there. The process server, however, did not testify that Toribio told him that he actually lived at the address. This was contrary to the return of service where the process server averred that Toribio told him the identified address was his home. It may have been his home prior to his being stabbed and moving to recuperate at D’Angelo’s residence. The City failed to meet its burden of proof that substitute service lawfully was made on Toribio. The trial court should have granted his motion to vacate the default and default final judgment. We reverse and remand for the trial court to do so and to quash service of process.

 

Reversed and remanded. (WARNER, STEVENSON and CONNER, JJ., concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982