CENTURY BRICK CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD GATEWOOD, 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.
Century Brick Corporation appeals the denial of its motion to quash service of process, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction. While the court found Century Brick was conducting sufficient business in Florida to be subject to substituted service statutes, it reversed because the plaintiff failed to comply with procedural requirements for effectuating valid substituted service.
The court held that while Century Brick was sufficiently engaged in business in Florida to be subject to the substituted service statutes, the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash because the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory procedures by not filing the required affidavit and obtaining the defendant's return receipt.
“in order to effectuate a valid service in accordance therewith, was required to file an affidavit in compliance with the statutes and the defendant's return receipt with the court records. This not having been done, it was error for the trial judge to deny the motion to quash”
Establishes that strict compliance with procedural requirements for substituted service is mandatory
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCentury Brick Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, was served as a defendant in Florida litigation pursuant to Florida's substituted service statu…
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 Affidavit Of Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of adverse orders denying its motion to quash and motion to dismiss directed to the service of process upon it, principally contending that service was insufficient and, therefore, there was a lack of jurisdiction over the person.
Service was attempted upon the appellant, as defendant in the trial court, pursuant to the provisions of §§ 47.16, 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.. The appellant contended that it was not within the provisions of the aforementioned statutes as it was not conducting business within the State of Florida. An examination of the affidavit submitted in support of this proposition indicates, upon the record made in this case, that the appellant was sufficiently engaged in business activity in this State to come within the statutes and, if this was the only point on this appeal, the action of the trial judge would be affirmed. However, it appears that one of the attacks upon the attempted service was the failure to have service of process “in the manner prescribed by law”. The plaintiff in the trial court having attempted to avail himself of the substituted service statutes [§§ 47.16, 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.], in order to effectuate a valid service in accordance therewith, was required to file an affidavit in compliance with the statutes and the defendant’s return receipt with the court records. This not having been done, it was error for the trial judge to deny the motion to quash and, upon the authority of Rever v. Lapidus, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 61, the order denying the motion to quash is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
PEARSON, TILLMAN, J., concurs in the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shiffman v. Stumpff, 445 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…Panter v. Werbel-Roth Securities, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); George Fischer Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Century Brick Corp. of America v. Gatewood, 157 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Rever v. Lapidus, 151 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Appellee contends that he has strictly complied, because he filed his affidavit of compliance “within such time as the court allows,” a matter within the trial court’s discreti…
Authorities Cited
- Irwin S. Rever v. Lapidus, 151 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)