Chatarpaul v. Colbert

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chatarpaul v. Colbert

564 So. 2d 292, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5660, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1972

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1990

DocketNo. 90-0210

StatusPublished

This text of 564 So. 2d 292 (Chatarpaul v. Colbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chatarpaul v. Colbert, 564 So. 2d 292, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5660, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1972 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For two reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order which denied appellant’s motion to quash service.

As appellant points out, appellees’ affidavit fails to rebut appellant’s by competent proof. See Naviera Blancamar, S.A. v. Boucher, 547 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellees failed to provide the [293]*293trial court with competent proof that the adult woman named Jennifer (no last name given) upon whom service was made was residing in appellant’s household and was a proper recipient of service. Further, as appellant points out, appellees’ cross-claim fails to allege sufficient facts concerning the statutory basis of jurisdiction over appellant in Canada. See Neff v. Adler, 416 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Plummer v. Hoover, 519 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

For two reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order which denied appellant’s motion to quash service.

As appellant points out, appellees’ affidavit fails to rebut appellant’s by competent proof. See Naviera Blancamar, S.A. v. Boucher, 547 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellees failed to provide the [293]*293trial court with competent proof that the adult woman named Jennifer (no last name given) upon whom service was made was residing in appellant’s household and was a proper recipient of service. Further, as appellant points out, appellees’ cross-claim fails to allege sufficient facts concerning the statutory basis of jurisdiction over appellant in Canada. See Neff v. Adler, 416 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Plummer v. Hoover, 519 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 292, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5660, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatarpaul-v-colbert-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack