DAVID SELTZER AND ILA SELTZER, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEY WEST BANK, FSB, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
We recently reiterated that “[a] return of service that is ‘regular on its face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary.” Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So.2d 818, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Additionally, “a defendant may not impeach the validity of the summons with a simple denial of service.” Id. at 819. See also SunTrust Bank v. Elec. Wireless Corp, 23 So.3d 774, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Here, the return of service states that it was effected on Jerry Newton, a tenant/occupant residing with David Seltzer. Seltzer filed an affidavit signed by Jerry Newton, who does not deny that he was a tenant/occupant residing with David Seltzer, but states that his address is 25 Blue Bonnet Lane, Burnsville, North Carolina. A person can reside at one place and have a different mailing address.
We thus conclude that Seltzer failed to present clear and convincing evidence to invalidate the return of service which was regular on its face.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweeting v. State, 260 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Pineda v. State, 211 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…t to rehabilitate Sergeant Utset, the State merely asked Sergeant Utset during the State’s re-direct examination if Sergeant Utset was trained to look for a motive to lie and whether he saw a motive in the instant case. See Torres-Matmoros v. State, 34 So. 3d 83, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (finding that “the arresting officer’s redirect testimony did not constitute bolstering, but only clarification of testimony adduced by Torres-Matmoros on cross-examination”). In response, Sergeant Utset testified that he was…
Authorities Cited
- Telf Corp. v. Ivon Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Suntrust Bank v. Elec. Wireless Corp. & Fabian Pesantes, 23 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)