ALFRED BARR
v.
SHAINA THORPE, ESQ.
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.
An appeal challenging the sufficiency of service of process is moot if valid service has been accomplished, and appeals from nonfinal nonappealable orders are properly dismissed.
[1] An appeal challenging an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure of service, without prejudice, and an order denying reconsideration of that dismissal, is moot if…
[2] A challenge to the sufficiency of prior service of process is rendered moot if the plaintiff cures the alleged infirmity by properly re-serving the defendant during the p…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“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.”
Court cited Cruz v. Citimortgage, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) in explaining why the service of process challenge was moot.
Barr sued Thorpe and Thorpe & Thorpe, P.A., and the trial court dismissed for failure of proper service. Barr appealed six nonfinal orders including t…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Elizabeth G. Rice, Judge.
Alfred Barr, pro se.
Shaina Thorpe of Thorpe & Thorpe, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
LaROSE, Judge.
Alfred Barr challenges six nonfinal orders on appeal. We dismiss the appeal as to Mr. Barr's challenge to the trial court's order granting Thorpe & Thorpe,
P.A.'s motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure of service, without prejudice,
and the trial court's order denying Mr. Barr's motion for reconsideration of that order.
See Cruz v. Citimortgage, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("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."); see, e.g., Diaz v. First Capital Corp., 771 So. 2d
598, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (concluding that the service of process issue was moot where the Appellee cured the alleged infirmity by properly re-serving the Appellant during the pendency of the appeal); Dickinson v. Dickinson, 706 So. 2d 114, 114 (Fla.
1st DCA 1998) ("[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.").
The appeal of the remaining orders is dismissed as being from nonfinal,
nonappealable orders. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3) (enumerating the types of appealable nonfinal orders).
Dismissed.
MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cruz v. Citimortgage, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Bobillo v. State, 771 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Dickinson v. Dickinson, 706 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)