Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King, 4D02-2963.

Citation861 So.2d 1264
Decision Date17 December 2003
Docket NumberNo. 4D02-2963.,4D02-2963.
PartiesTOP DOLLAR PAWN TOO, INC., and Advance Auto Body & Sales, Inc., Appellants, v. Carl KING, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Norman Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Zimmerman & Micelli, P.A., Pompano Beach, for appellants.

John E. Carter and Thomas A. Robes of Carter & Thomas, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.

MAY, J.

Two defendants, Advance Auto Body & Sales, Inc. and Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc., appeal the denial of their Amended Motion to Vacate, Dissolve and Set Aside a Temporary Injunction, Default Judgment and Final Judgment. They argue that the plaintiff's failure to properly serve them with the Complaint and Petition for Temporary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order required the trial court to vacate the default judgment and temporary injunction. Secondarily, they argue that the trial court erred in entering an injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm. As to Advance, we agree that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the verified complaint and therefore reverse that part of the order. We find no error in the court's ruling concerning the service on Top Dollar. We affirm in all other respects.

In July 2001, the plaintiff brought his 1960, model 62, 2-door convertible to a repair shop. He alleged that the repair shop breached its duty by entrusting the car to an unreliable third party and/or by failing to compensate the third party for repairs performed on the car. The "unreliable third party" is Advance.

Advance acquired title to the car by purchasing it at an auction after the plaintiff allegedly failed to pay the repair shop. Top Dollar was attempting to sell the car on behalf of Advance. When the plaintiff learned that Advance and Top Dollar were in possession of the vehicle, he filed the verified complaint.

Both Advance and Top Dollar are corporations organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Florida. Their principal place of business is in Broward County, Florida. Norman Zimmerman is the registered agent for Advance. Henry A. Peterson is the registered agent for Top Dollar.

The verified return of service on Advance stated that service was made upon "SHEILA GOLDMAN, as OFFICE MANAGER, AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF MR. ZIMMERMAN." The verified return of service on Top Dollar indicated that Henry A. Peterson, Registered Agent for Top Dollar, was served. Neither Advance nor Top Dollar responded to the complaint.

On February 2, 2002, the trial court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order against Advance and Top Dollar. On March 25, 2002, the plaintiff obtained defaults against both of them. The trial court then entered a final judgment, quieting title to the car against Advance, Top Dollar, and the repair shop. The trial court found the plaintiff to be the sole owner of the car. The court authorized the sheriff to give possession of the car to the plaintiff and assessed joint and several liability for costs against Advance and Top Dollar.

On May 10, 2002, Advance and Top Dollar served an amended motion to vacate. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the amended motion. It is from this order that the defendants appeal.

Three principles control the outcome of this case. First, the standard of review for an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is abuse of discretion. George v. Radcliffe, 753 So.2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on rehearing). Second, statutes concerning service of process are to be strictly construed. York Communications, Inc. v. Furst Group, Inc., 724 So.2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Third, service on a domestic corporation may be effectuated only by complying with section 48.081, Florida Statutes (2002).

Section 48.081(3) provides that "process may be served on the agent designated by the corporation under s. 48.091. However, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Coffin v. Brandau
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 3, 2011
    ...Op. at 1003–04. The cases cited did not involve a restraining order for repeat violence. See Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King, 861 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Inc., 824 So.2d 194, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (per curiam). The dissent both overlooks cle......
  • Southeast Land Developers v. All Fla. Site
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 12, 2010
    ...of review for an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is abuse of discretion.") (quoting Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King, 861 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)); Szucs v. Qualico Dev., Inc., 893 So.2d 708, 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("The standard of review for an order deny......
  • Price v. That Certain 2000 Rolls Royce Corniche Vin No. Cazk29e3YCX68097
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 3, 2014
    ...to enter judgment quieting title and awarding possession to the party entitled thereto]; see e.g., Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King (Fla.App. 2003) 861 So.2d 1264, 1265 [trial court quieted title in car and authorized sheriff to give possession of it to successful plaintiff].) We assume th......
  • Boatfloat, LLC v. Central Transport Intern.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 22, 2006
    ...standard of review for an order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is abuse of discretion." Top Dollar Pawn Too, Inc. v. King, 861 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing George v. Radcliffe, 753 So.2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on The crux of BoatFloat's argument on appeal is......
  • 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