Case Name: OTEMAN, S.A., Appellant, v. Yamilet NAPOLES and Jose Enrique Cardenas, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-05-24
Citations: 757 So. 2d 1261
Docket Number: No. 3D00-264
Parties: OTEMAN, S.A., Appellant, v. Yamilet NAPOLES and Jose Enrique Cardenas, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 757
Pages: 1261–1262

Head Matter:
OTEMAN, S.A., Appellant, v. Yamilet NAPOLES and Jose Enrique Cardenas, Appellees.
No. 3D00-264.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 24, 2000.
Renee Adwar and M.A. Martin, Miami, for appellant.
Stabinski & Funt, Miami; Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only substantial question raised on this appeal from a denial of a motion to set aside a default is whether the substituted service effected on the defendant was defective because of the plaintiffs failure to file an appropriate affidavit of compliance as required by section 48.161, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with the trial court that compliance was excused because, although the certified mailing to the defendant was returned marked "unclaimed," •the record shows that, in fact, the defendant deliberately refused to accept delivery of the transmittal. Waxoyl, A.G., v. Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, 711 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Cortez Dev. Co. v. New York Capital Group, 401 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Richardson v. Williams, 201 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN, J., concur.