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

June 24, 2016 by admin

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

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1423aTop of Form

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.)

* *
*

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