Court Opinion

ID: 9381259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 15:04:10.541378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.266683
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                 State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 22, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                               No. 3D22-919
                        Lower Tribunal No. 19-19509
                           ________________

        Allstate Mortgage Solutions Transfer, Inc., et al.,
                                   Appellants,

                                         vs.

                       Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
                                    Appellee.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.

     Elliot L. Miller, for appellants.

      Bitman O’Brien & Morat, PLLC, and Allison Morat (Lake Mary), for
appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla.

3d DCA 1994) (“[Service] which is regular on its face is presumed valid

unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary.

Furthermore, a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying

service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his

denial of service.”) (quoting Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194,

1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); Morales L. Grp., P.A. v. Rodman, 305 So. 3d

759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Because [the appellant] did not submit any

evidence challenging the facts contained in the return of service, the

[appellant] did not meet its burden.”); Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818,

818–19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming “the order of the trial court denying

appellants’ respective motions to quash service of process” where

“[appellant] sought to attack the service of process with uncorroborated

affidavits” and concluding “appellants have not sustained their high burden

of demonstrating the invalidity of their service”).

                                        2