Becker v. Becker

• Decision Date: 20 July 2022
• Docket Number: 3D22-0352
• Citation: 343 So.3d 153
• Parties: Daniella BECKER, Appellant, v. Timothy BECKER, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

343 So.3d 153

Daniella BECKER, Appellant,
v.
Timothy BECKER, Appellee.

No. 3D22-0352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 20, 2022
Rehearing Denied August 18, 2022

Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., and Albert W. Guffanti, for appellant.

The Law Offices of A.K. Esquire, PLLC and Matthew Z. Karim (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ.

BOKOR, J.

We affirm the trial court's denial of Daniela Becker's motion to dismiss based on improper service. Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that Daniela attempted to evade service of process initiated by her husband, Timothy Becker.¹ The issue hinges on whether the failure of the process server to inform her of the contents of the items rendered service defective.²

"Although a return of service is presumptively correct, the invalidity of service may be established by clear and convincing evidence." Montano v. Montano, 472 So. 2d 1377, 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We have no such clear and convincing evidence to undermine the presumptively valid service here. Under the facts of this case, the process server complied with the service statute. See § 48.031, Fla. Stat.

Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Daniella "was properly served the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage with minor children, on March 13th, 2021." Competent,

343 So.3d 155

substantial evidence, specifically, the affidavit and testimony of the process server, supports a conclusion that the process server clearly identified that he "had a summons and complaint and that [Daniella] was being served with a lawsuit," that Daniella didn't accept the papers, that she didn't answer to her name, that she did not wait for an explanation of the contents of the papers, and that she proceeded into her father's house instead of accepting such service. Further, the record evidence establishes that after Daniella evaded service, her father blocked access and said the process server would have to "deal with him." At this point, the process server testified he placed the papers in a conspicuous location and screamed to anyone listening that Daniella has been served. Additionally, the process server called Daniella after service, leaving an (unreturned) phone message attempting to explain service.

Daniella doesn't contest that she received the papers or that the process server attempted service; rather, her argument of improper service hinges upon the process...