Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the order vacating a default final judgment based on defective service of process. It reversed the dismissal without prejudice, holding that defective service should have been quashed rather than the action dismissed, particularly because the statute of limitations had expired, and remanded for further proceedings.
Holdings
- The trial court did not grossly abuse its discretion by granting the motion to vacate the default final judgment based on defective service of process.
- When service of process is invalid but was effected within the applicable service period, the proper remedy is to quash service and permit the action to remain pending, not to dismiss the action outright.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by vacating the default final judgment based on defective service of process.
- Whether defective service of process warranted dismissal of the action rather than quashing service and permitting the action to remain pending.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (12)
- DND Mail Corp. v. Andgen Props., LLC, 28 So. 3d 111, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(followed)
- Karan v. Pernia, 343 So. 3d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)(followed)
- Allstate Mortg. Sols. Transfer, Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 338 So. 3d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)(followed)
- Vives v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 128 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)(distinguished)
- Caban v. Skinner, 648 So. 2d 251, 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(followed)
- Bice v. Metz Const. Co., 699 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(followed)
- Sneed v. H.B. Daniel Const. Co., 674 So. 2d 158, 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(followed)
- Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(followed)
- Payette v. Clark, 559 So. 2d 630, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(followed)
- Miranda v. Young, 19 So. 3d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…