E.G. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.G. v. State

718 So. 2d 942, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12825, 1998 WL 712690

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2732

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 942 (E.G. v. State) 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

E.G. v. State, 718 So. 2d 942, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12825, 1998 WL 712690 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court in this case entered final judgment denying a petition for adoption, upon a finding of an inadequate diligent search with regard to constructive service on the biological father. We agree with the adoptive parents’ argument that having found service of process to be inadequate, the trial court should have permitted additional time to effect proper service, rather than denying the petition outright. See Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 276 So.2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA1973). See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 (providing in part “[w]hen any process is returned not executed or returned improperly executed for any defendant, the party causing its issuance shall be entitled to such additional process against the unserved party as is required to effect service.”)

The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court in this case entered final judgment denying a petition for adoption, upon a finding of an inadequate diligent search with regard to constructive service on the biological father. We agree with the adoptive parents’ argument that having found service of process to be inadequate, the trial court should have permitted additional time to effect proper service, rather than denying the petition outright. See Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 276 So.2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA1973). See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 (providing in part “[w]hen any process is returned not executed or returned improperly executed for any defendant, the party causing its issuance shall be entitled to such additional process against the unserved party as is required to effect service.”)

The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 942, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12825, 1998 WL 712690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eg-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack