Hauser v. Schiff

Decision Date11 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76--203,76--203
Citation341 So.2d 531
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesJoseph HAUSER, Appellant, v. Neil SCHIFF, as Receiver of Carriage House Apartment Hotel, Appellee.

Ciravolo & Feldman, Miami and Howard Horowitz, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Parker & Werner, Joe Unger, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., PEARSON, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

In an attempt to perfect personal service of process upon the appellant, one Freddy Carreras went to the office of Fleetwood Insurance Agency, on the 6th floor of 3550 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. Mr. Carreras, upon his arrival spoke to a secretary and informed her he had come to serve the appellant with a paper. Thereafter, without seeing the appellant, Mr. Carreras left the summons and complaint with the secretary and departed. He did not, at any time, inform the secretary as to the nature of the papers.

Based on the foregoing, the appellant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process on the ground that process was not properly served pursuant to Section 48.031, Florida Statutes (1975). By this appeal, the appellant challenges the correctness of the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. We agree with the appellant and hereby reverse.

Section 48.031, Florida Statutes (1975) reads as follows:

'Service of original process is made by delivering a copy (of it) to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his usual place of abode with some person of the family who is fifteen years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided by this section.'

Statutes governing substituted service of process must be strictly construed and must be strictly complied with. American Liberty Insurance Company v. Maddox, 238 So.2d 154 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1970); Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Rossmoore, 271 So.2d 31 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1972). The term 'usual place of abode' contained in Section 48.031, Florida Statutes (1975) means where the person is actually living at the time of service. State v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 496, 195 So. 145 (1940). Furthermore, a 'person of the family' may be a visitor for a prolonged period to the abode of the person to be served, but there is no question that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • White v. Berryman
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1992
    ...jurisdiction in the absence of evidence that the secretary or assistant was authorized to accept service. See, e.g., Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531 (Fla.App.1977); Adams v. Gluckman, 183 Ga.App. 666, 359 S.E.2d 710 (1987); Bray v. Bayles, 228 Kan. 481, 618 P.2d 807 (1980); French v. Gabrie......
  • Shurman v. Atlantic Mortg. & Inv. Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 6 Septiembre 2001
    ...707, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Aero Costa Rica, Inc. v. Dispatch Servs., Inc., 710 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In Heffernan, this Court defined the term "usual place of abode" as meaning the place where the defendant is actually......
  • Wagner v. Truesdell
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 1997
    ...more than the husband, wife and their children. Kenner v. Schmidt, 252 Or. 218, 448 P.2d 537, 539 (1968). See also Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); Midwest Acceptance Corp. v. Blount, 777 S.W.2d 645, 646 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); Annotation, Who is Member of Family Withi......
  • McAllister v. Jack's Marina South, Civil Action No. 99-1255 (E.D. Pa. 10/22/1999)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 Octubre 1999
    ...for obtaining personal service on individual pursuant to § 48.031), review denied, 639 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1994); Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So.2d 531, 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (service of process at defendant's office upon a secretary does not constitute compliance with § 48.031). Plaintiff h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT