Beckley v. Best Restorations, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D09-249.,4D09-249. |
| Citation | 13 So.3d 125 |
| Parties | Sandra Sue BECKLEY and Michael Beckley, Appellants, v. BEST RESTORATIONS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Scott J. Topolski and Eric J. Neuman of Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Lee D. Sarkin and Drew M. Levitt, Boca Raton, for appellee.
Sandra and Michael Beckley (the Defendants) timely appeal the trial court's non-final order denying their cross-motion to quash service of process and non-final order granting Best Restorations, Inc.'s (the Plaintiff) motion for default. We reverse the trial court's order denying the Defendants' cross-motion to quash service of process because section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (2008) was not a valid method for the Plaintiff to serve the Defendants. By doing so, we deem moot whether the order granting the motion for default is an appealable non-final order.
On March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff brought a complaint against the Defendants alleging that they failed to pay for repair and restoration work on their home located in Deerfield Beach, Florida. A summons was issued for the Defendants listing the Deerfield Beach home address. The Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve the Defendants at that address. Through the use of a private investigator, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants owned a house in Knoxville, Tennessee, and service was attempted at the Knoxville address. The process server in Knoxville discovered that the Defendants were in Florida so the Plaintiff once again attempted to serve the Defendants at their Deerfield Beach home. The Florida process server's affidavit reflected that nobody was living at the Deerfield Beach home and that it was up for sale.
The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants maintained a UPS store mailbox in Sevierville, Tennessee. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff delivered copies of an Alias Summons and Complaint to the owner of the UPS store in Sevierville. Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved for default, arguing that the Defendants had been served at the mailbox address, pursuant to section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (2008), and had failed to file or serve any paper in response. The Defendants opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion to quash service, arguing that the conditions for private mailbox service were not met. The trial court denied the Defendants' cross-motion to quash service.
The issue in this case is whether section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (2008) is a permitted method of service under the facts of this case. This is a question of law subject to a de novo standard of review on appeal. Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard, 954 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (2008) reads as follows:
If the only address for a person to be served, which is discoverable through public records, is a private mailbox, substitute service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person in charge of the private mailbox, but only if the process server determines that the person to be served maintains a mailbox at that location.
The Plaintiff argues that substitute service by private mailbox service under section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (2008) is proper, provided that a plaintiff has first made a diligent effort to serve a defendant at any address or addresses discoverable through public records. The Defendants counter that the statute, by its very terms, applies only to those instances where the only address for a defendant, which is discoverable through the public records, is a private mailbox.
The plain language of the statute leads us to conclude that substitute service on the Defendants pursuant to section 48.031(6), Florida Statutes (20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avraham v. Golden
...through a public records search, and service was improper. Fla. Stat. § 48.031(6)(a); see also Beckley v. Best Restorations, Inc., 13 So. 3d 125, 126-27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).20 Nevertheless, this Court has "broad discretion" in deciding a Rule 12(b)(5) motion and "[w]here a plaintiff ......
-
Clauro Enterprises v. Galiano Holdings
...whether service is proper under this statute, the court must consider the plain language of the statute. See Beckley v. Best Restorations, Inc., 13 So.3d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The statute only permits substitute service at a private mailbox if (1) it is the only address discoverable thro......
-
McDaniel v. FirstBank P.R.
...on the sufficiency of substitute service under section 48.031(6), a de novo standard of review applies. Beckley v. Best Restorations, Inc., 13 So.3d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 48.031(6) provides in full: If the only address for a person to be served, which is discoverable through......
-
Visalus, Inc. v. Then
...LLC, 16 So. 3d 1009, 1012(Fla. 3d DCA 2009); TID Servs., Inc. v. Dass, 65 So. 3d 1, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Beckly v. Best Restorations, Inc., 13 So. 3d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (the plaintiff must prove that "the only address discoverable through the public records to effect service is a......