JEFFERSON BANK & TRUST, A COLORADO BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOAN LINDA LEVY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jefferson Bank & Trust appealed a trial court order that vacated service of process against defendant Joan Linda Levy based on her testimony that she was not personally served at her father's residence. The appellate court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient under the clear and convincing standard to impeach the sheriff's return of service.
The appellate court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to impeach the sheriff's return of service. The defendant's uncorroborated testimony, combined with the father's vague testimony about an unspecified failed attempt, falls short of the clear and convincing standard required to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the sheriff's return.
[1] A sheriff's return of service is presumed to be valid and can only be impeached by clear and convincing evidence.
[2] Uncorroborated testimony of a defendant alone is generally insufficient to establish clear and convincing evidence to impeach a sheriff's return of service.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The sum of the evidence accepted by the trial court as 'clear and convincing' evidence that personal service was not effected upon the defendant-appellee at the residence of her father, as indicated in the sheriff's return of service, was (a) the testimony of the defendant herself, uncorroborated by any other witness or piece of tangible evidence, that she had not been served”
Describes the evidence the trial court relied upon to void service of process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe sheriff's return indicated personal service was effected upon defendant Levy at her father's residence. Defendant testified she had not been serve…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The sum of the evidence accepted by the trial court as “clear and convincing” evidence 1 that personal service was not effected upon the defendant-appellee at the residence of her father, as indicated in the sheriff’s return of service, was (a) the testimony of the defendant herself, uncorroborated by any other witness or piece of tangible evidence, that she had not been served and that, although she had often been at her father’s home, she was living elsewhere and was not present at the date and time reflected in the return and (b) the testimony of the father that on an unspecified occasion there had been an attempt to serve the defendant at his home which failed because she was not present at the time; he stated, however, that she had access and a key to the house during the period in question and that he had no knowledge as to whether or not she had been served there when the return said she had. This showing was, if anything, substantially weaker than that found to be insufficient as a matter of law to impeach the return in the comprehensive and well-considered opinion on the subject in Slo-mowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
There — although, in addition to rather specific denials of service by the defendant herself, there was affirmative testimony that she had never visited the place where she was supposedly served — a trial court order vacating the service of process was set aside. On the authority of, and for the reasons stated in Slomowitz, we reach the same conclusion.
Accordingly the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed.
. See Clements Naval Stores Co. v. J.S. Betts Co., 85 Fla. 49, 95 So. 126 (1923); Golden Gate Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 140 Fla. 103, 191 So. 202 (1939); Winky’s Inc. v. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slomowitz v. E.O. Walker and Geneva Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Winky's, Inc. v. Ivy M. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Clements Naval Stores Co. v. J. S. Betts Co., 85 Fla. 49 (Fla. 1923)
- Golden Gate Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 140 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1939)