Kennedy v. Richmond, 4-86-2778
Decision Date | 23 September 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 4-86-2778,4-86-2778 |
Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2300,512 So.2d 1129 |
Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2300 Eva A. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. Barry C. RICHMOND and Thomas J. Wareham, d/b/a B & C Remodelers, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bart T. Heffernan of Musselman, Reinhardt, Welch & Korthals, Pompano Beach, for appellant.
William D. Beamer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Thomas J. Wareham.
Eva A. Kennedy, plaintiff below, appeals the trial court's order vacating a final judgment against the defendant Thomas Wareham. We affirm.
Appellant originally filed an action for breach of contract against Barry C. Richmond and Thomas J. Wareham, d/b/a B & C Remodelers. An answer was filed, purportedly on behalf of both defendants, but it was later determined that the attorney who prepared the answer had never been retained by Wareham.
The case was set for trial and was heard in the absence of both defendants, after which final judgment was entered against them. Thereafter, Wareham filed a motion to vacate the judgment, contending that he had not received notice of the lawsuit until after the final judgment had been rendered.
The record contains no indication that Wareham was ever personally served with a copy of a summons or the complaint. A return of service document indicates that a copy of the summons and complaint was purportedly served on Wareham at 920 N. Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, Florida. A handwritten notation on the return of service states, "Served Barry Richmond authorized to accept papers." However, there was no showing by what authority Richmond was authorized to accept service for Wareham, and Wareham testified at the hearing on the motion to vacate the judgment that he had never had any connection with the office facility located at the indicated address.
Even if Richmond and Wareham were business partners, any service on Richmond was ineffective as to Wareham personally, for although service of process on one partner is sufficient to give a court jurisdiction over the partnership and to enable it to render a judgment binding the partners served and the partnership property, a judgment after service on fewer than all the partners will not be given the effect of a personal judgment against partners not actually served. See Florida Brewing Co. v. Sendoya, 73 Fla. 660, 74 So. 799 (1917); Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Homan, 116 So.2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Appellant contends that appellee failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Viets v. Arei
...from a void judgment may be granted at any time. See Shields v. Flinn, 528 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA A violation of the due process guarantee......
-
Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken."); see Shields, 528 So. 2d at 968 ; Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ; Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Certainly, there is "a disti......
-
Bay City Management, Inc. v. Henderson
...to serve any paper. Accordingly, the defaults were erroneously entered against them and should have been vacated. Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (judgment entered without service of process is void and could be set aside and struck on motion anytime); Windmill......
-
Del Conte Enterprises, Inc. v. Thomas Pub. Co., 97-2793
...within a reasonable time. It is well settled that a judgment entered without due service of process is void. See Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). It is also well settled that Florida Rule......