Schneiderman v. Cantor, 88-1542
| Decision Date | 28 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1542,88-1542 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1569 Lee SCHNEIDERMAN, Appellant, v. Jay CANTOR, Larry Ritter, People's Equity Mortgage, Inc., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Randy R. Freedman of Freedman & McClosky, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Andrew S. Berman of Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellees.
AFFIRMED. We address whether failure to make timely objection when a case is dormant due to invalid service will allow entry of a final default judgment against the improperly served party.
On August 24, 1987, appellant was served in New Jersey. The affidavit of service filed on October 1, 1987 failed to note the time when the process came into hand and the time it was executed. Both are statutory requirements of a proper return of execution of process. Failure to state the times invalidates the service. The return is amendable at any time. Once amended, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. § 48.21, Fla. Stat. (1987).
On October 6, 1987, appellant's attorney wrote the trial court admitting his client received a copy of the complaint and expressing that an attack on the defective service might be made to avoid the acknowledged default.
On December 29, 1987, appellees moved for entry of final default judgment which was entered on February 4, 1988, a copy of which was mailed to appellant on February 15, 1988.
On March 23, 1988, appellant moved to set aside the default and final default judgment. The trial court denied the motion finding lack of due diligence on appellant's part. Appellant appeals.
Defective service suspends personal jurisdiction. Klosenski v. Flaherty, 116 So.2d 767 (Fla.1959); Tetley v. Lett, 462 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). However, where a defendant unduly delays in objecting to defective service, permitting a default and final default judgment to be entered, a court may deny defendant's motion to vacate for failure to timely object. Accord Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. v. Huff, 499 So.2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1987); Craven v. J.M. Fields, Inc., 226 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Defendant is required to demonstrate excusable neglect, the existence of a meritorious defense and a showing of due diligence in seeking relief after learning of the default and final default judgment. Id.
Rule 1.140(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure states...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horizon Leasing, A Div. of Horizon Financial, F.A. v. Leefmans
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Steven Lake Masonry, Inc., 356 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). While we would prefer to see a matter settled on the merits and adhere to a liberal policy regarding defaults, there are......
-
Paleias v. Wang
...notice is adequate, 6 defects in process or service of process are waived if not timely raised. Rule 1.140(b). See Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). I would therefore affirm this case because the service of process issue could not have been raised by this 1.540 motio......
-
Re-Employment Services, Ltd. v. Nlac
...is suspended and it "lies dormant" until proper proof of valid service is submitted. Klosenski, 116 So.2d at 769; Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Tetley v. Lett, 462 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA The statutory provisions that govern return of service are found in ......
-
ARMET SNC v. Hornsby, 99-225.
...a defendant must demonstrate excusable neglect and due diligence in objecting to an irregularity in service. Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Armet did not file its motion to set aside the final judgment until August 28, 1998, more than a year after the entry of the......
-
Summons, service of process, and e-mail service
...the return is defective or if no return is filed. Defects are attacked by a motion to quash service of process. [ Schneiderman v. Canton, 546 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(undue delay in attacking defect may waive defect).] A failure to state all the facts in the return subjects the officer......