Jurisdiction
— Service of process — Error to quash service of process where return of
service was regular on its face and defendant failed to demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that place of service was not his usual place of abode

ARLENE PREUDHOMME, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS and
GARTH BAILEY, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D15-3640. June 15, 2016.
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 14-004538
(12). Counsel: Arlene Preudhomme, Pembroke Pines, pro se. Joseph S. Geller of
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Christopher Matthews.

(PER CURIAM.) We reverse the order granting the motion to
quash service of process.

A plaintiff seeking to “invoke the court’s jurisdiction
bears the burden of proving proper service,” which requires a showing that the
return of service is “facially valid or regular on its face.” Koster v.
Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385, 389 (Fla. 2015). “If the return is regular on its
face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party challenging
service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id. (quoting Re-Emp’t Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan
Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)); see also
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bornstein, 39 So. 3d 500, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Thus,

a
defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present
“clear and convincing evidence” to corroborate his denial of service. Slomowitz
v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Clear and convincing
evidence requires that the witnesses to a fact be credible; the facts testified
to must be distinctly remembered; the details must be narrated exactly and in
order; the testimony must be clear, direct and weighty; and the witnesses must be
lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue.

Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co.,
548 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Bornstein, 39 So. 3d
at 503 (stating “clear and convincing evidence” standard for overcoming
presumption of valid service).

Here, appellant met her initial burden of establishing the
validity of service, as the return of service was regular on its face. The
burden thus shifted to appellee to demonstrate that the place of service was
not his usual place of abode. Appellee presented no documentation or live
testimony at the hearing on the motion to quash, only his affidavit, which fell
short of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. See Johnson v.
Christiana Tr., 166 So. 3d 940, 943-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Reversed and remanded. (GROSS, CONNER and FORST,
JJ., concur.)

* *
*