Court Opinion

ID: 9919126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 16:04:37.034246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:58.587504
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                         MEREDYTH CAPASSO,
                             Appellant,

                                    v.

          MARY JO BUCHANAN and HERBERT BOOKSTEIN,
                         Appellees.

                            No. 4D2023-1397

                           [January 17, 2024]

  Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Luis Delgado, Judge; L.T. Case No.
502021CA010471.

    Ken Taninaka of Salomon, Kanner, Damian & Rodriguez, P.A., Miami,
for appellant.

   Andre G. Raikhelson of the Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson, Boca
Raton, for appellee Mary Jo Buchanan.

PER CURIAM.

   Appellant Meredyth Capasso appeals the trial court’s order denying her
amended motion to quash service of process following a non-evidentiary
hearing. We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary
hearing.

    Appellant filed her amended motion to quash service of process after
Appellee Mary Jo Buchanan attempted to serve process on her twice.
Appellant argued the first attempt was invalid because the process server
failed to place on the summons served the date and time of service, the
server’s initials or signature, and the server’s identification number as
required by section 48.031(5), Florida Statutes (2023), and Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.070. Appellant challenged the second attempt because
the process server served the summons that had previously been returned
as served but once again did not comply with all the requirements of
section 48.031(5) and rule 1.070.
    “A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to quash
service of process if the motion and accompanying affidavit, if proven by
clear and convincing evidence, would show that the plaintiff failed to effect
valid service.” Lilly v. Bank of Am., N.A., 267 So. 3d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2019) (citing Linville v. Home Sav. of Am., FSB, 629 So. 2d 295, 296
(Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
because her motion adequately raised the process server’s failure to
strictly comply with section 48.031(5) and rule 1.070. See id.; see also
Brown v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n, 117 So. 3d 823, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
(“When a process server fails to strictly comply with [the service of process]
rules, service must be quashed.”). Further, Appellant did not waive her
objection to personal jurisdiction by filing discovery requests and motions
relating to discovery or by otherwise defending the action. See Brown, 117
So. 3d at 824 (defensive acts, such as discovery requests, do not waive
defects in service because they do not constitute requests for affirmative
relief).

   Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an
evidentiary hearing.

   Reversed and remanded.
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

                            *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.