Summary
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal dismissed Alfred Barr's appeal concerning six nonfinal orders. The court dismissed challenges to orders regarding service of process as moot because the service issue could be cured by re-service, and dismissed the remaining challenges because the orders were nonfinal and nonappealable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Barr's challenges to the orders concerning insufficient service of process became moot after valid service was accomplished.
- Whether the remaining challenged orders were appealable nonfinal orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).
Holdings
- A challenge to the sufficiency of prior service of process is moot when subsequent valid service cures the alleged defect.
- Orders that are nonfinal and do not fall within the categories of appealable nonfinal orders enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) are not appealable.
Key quotations
“A plaintiff should be able to correct purported problems with service of process by re-serving a summons. If subsequent service of process is valid, then any challenge to the sufficiency of a prior service is moot.” (-2)
“[T]he record before us reflects that a deputy sheriff properly served Appellant before the order on appeal was entered. As Appellee correctly states, the issue is moot since proper service has now been accomplished.” (-2)
Factual background
Alfred Barr challenged six nonfinal orders entered in the circuit court. One challenged order granted Thorpe & Thorpe, P.A.'s motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure of service, and another denied Barr's motion for reconsideration. The service issue became moot because the alleged service defect was cured by subsequent valid service.
Procedural history
Alfred Barr appealed six nonfinal orders entered by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The appellate court dismissed without prejudice the challenges concerning dismissal of the original complaint for failure of service and denial of reconsideration because subsequent valid service rendered the issue moot. It dismissed the appeal as to the remaining orders because they were nonfinal and nonappealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3).