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

January 18, 2017 by admin

Jurisdiction — Service of process — Substituted service of process was ineffective — Error to deny motion to quash service of process

42
Fla. L. Weekly D161a
Top of Form

Jurisdiction
— Service of process — Substituted service of process was ineffective where
plaintiff failed to mail a copy of process to defendant by registered or
certified mail, failed to file the return receipt from such mailing, and failed
to file its counsel’s affidavit of compliance — Defendant did not waive
service of process by its counsel’s filing of a notice of appearance or a
motion for extension of time — Error to deny motion to quash service of
process

GREEN
EMERALD HOMES, LLC, Appellant, v. PNC BANK, N.A. AND TREVOR SAHADATALLI,
Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D16-1189. Opinion filed January 13, 2017.
Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Margaret H.
Schreiber, Judge. Counsel: Brennan Grogan, of Levine Law Group, Palm Beach
Gardens, for Appellant. Karin Posser, and William Grimsely, of McGlinchey
Stafford, Jacksonville, for PNC Bank, N.A., Appellee. No appearance for other
Appellee.

(PER
CURIAM.) Green Emerald Homes, LLC (“Green Emerald”) appeals the trial court’s
denial of its motion to quash service of process attempted by PNC Bank, N.A.
(“PNC”). PNC alleged that Green Emerald was concealing its whereabouts to avoid
service of process, which would entitle PNC to pursue substitute service of
process on the Secretary of State pursuant to sections 48.062(3) and 48.161(1),
Florida Statutes (2014). We reverse and remand to the trial court for the
reasons set forth below.

Green
Emerald correctly asserts that the substituted service was ineffective because
PNC failed to comply with the requirements of section 48.161(1); specifically:
(1) PNC did not mail a copy of the notice of service and a copy of the process
to Green Emerald by registered or certified mail, (2) PNC did not file the
return receipt from such mailing, and (3) PNC did not file its counsel’s
affidavit of compliance. “Perfection of substituted service requires strict
compliance with the statutory prerequisites because such service is an
exception to personal service.” Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1995) (citing Shiffman v. Stumpff, 445 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1984); Gloucester Eng’g, Inc. v. Mendoza, 489 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla.
3d DCA 1986)).

PNC
seeks to excuse its noncompliance with the requirements of section 48.161(1) by
relying upon Alvarado-Fernandez v. Mazoff, 151 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014). Mazoff sustained substitute service of process despite the
plaintiff’s failure to file the defendant’s return receipts when the defendant
evaded service. 151 So. 3d at 17. The Mazoff holding, however, cannot be
expanded to excuse PNC’s failure to comply with multiple statutory
requirements, especially those calculated to give a defendant actual notice of
the suit.

Nor
do we find that Green Emerald waived service of process by its counsel filing a
notice of appearance or a motion for extension of time. “The law is clear and
well-established that a simple notice of appearance by counsel does not
constitute a general appearance by the client and does not waive the client’s
claims as to lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.” Segalis v. Roof
Depot USA, LLC
, 178 So. 3d 83, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citation omitted).
“Furthermore, a motion for extension of time does not constitute a general
appearance.” DiGiovanni v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 83 So. 3d
934, 935-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citation omitted). Green Emerald timely raised
the issue of defective service of process in its motion to quash.

Accordingly,
we reverse the trial court’s order denying Green Emerald’s motion to quash and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED
AND REMANDED. (PALMER, ORFINGER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

 

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