Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Rotocast Plastic Products, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Rotocast Plastic Products, Inc.

352 So. 2d 145, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17081

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1977

DocketNo. 76-2347

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 145 (Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Rotocast Plastic Products, Inc.) 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

Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Rotocast Plastic Products, Inc., 352 So. 2d 145, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17081 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal an ex parte order commissioning Janet R. Pimley for the service of summons and complaint upon defendant Steven Bronson.

Plaintiff, Rotocast Plastic Products, filed a complaint for usury, fraud, etc. against Exchange National Bank of Chicago, Edward Sax, Lincolnshire Financial Services and Steven Bronson, vice-president of Exchange National Bank. The complaint alleged that Bronson was a resident of Chicago, Illinois. All defendants filed motions to dismiss which were denied except that of Bronson, whose dismissal motion was granted for insufficiency of service of process. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an order issuing a commission to Janet R. Pim-ley for the service of process on defendant Bronson in accordance with Sections 48.161, 48.181, Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.070. Without a hearing, the court granted the motion and entered an order commissioning Pimley for the service of summons and complaint on Bronson. Bronson and the other defendants appeal. We reverse.

The courts have the inherent power to appoint a process server upon default or disqualification of the sheriff or other officers so authorized, and under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(b), the court may appoint any competent person not interested in the action to serve the process. See Petition of Stoll, 309 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Plaintiff’s motion fails to allege disqualification, default or inability on the part of the sheriff or deputy sheriffs of Dade County and further contains no allegation as to the competence or disinterest of Janet Pimley.

Rule 6 (general jurisdiction division) of the Local Rules of Practice for the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit provides in pertinent part:

“RULE 6

“ORDERS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT OFFICERS

* * * * * *

“When an attorney requests the appointment of a process server, he shall submit a motion, under oath, stating his reasons with particularity, why he cannot use the Civil Division of the Sheriff’s Department, together with an order as described in the above paragraphs.”

Plaintiff’s motion was not made under oath, nor did it state why the civil division of the sheriff’s department could not be used.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal an ex parte order commissioning Janet R. Pimley for the service of summons and complaint upon defendant Steven Bronson.

Plaintiff, Rotocast Plastic Products, filed a complaint for usury, fraud, etc. against Exchange National Bank of Chicago, Edward Sax, Lincolnshire Financial Services and Steven Bronson, vice-president of Exchange National Bank. The complaint alleged that Bronson was a resident of Chicago, Illinois. All defendants filed motions to dismiss which were denied except that of Bronson, whose dismissal motion was granted for insufficiency of service of process. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an order issuing a commission to Janet R. Pim-ley for the service of process on defendant Bronson in accordance with Sections 48.161, 48.181, Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.070. Without a hearing, the court granted the motion and entered an order commissioning Pimley for the service of summons and complaint on Bronson. Bronson and the other defendants appeal. We reverse.

The courts have the inherent power to appoint a process server upon default or disqualification of the sheriff or other officers so authorized, and under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(b), the court may appoint any competent person not interested in the action to serve the process. See Petition of Stoll, 309 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Plaintiff’s motion fails to allege disqualification, default or inability on the part of the sheriff or deputy sheriffs of Dade County and further contains no allegation as to the competence or disinterest of Janet Pimley.

Rule 6 (general jurisdiction division) of the Local Rules of Practice for the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit provides in pertinent part:

“RULE 6

“ORDERS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT OFFICERS

* * * * * *

“When an attorney requests the appointment of a process server, he shall submit a motion, under oath, stating his reasons with particularity, why he cannot use the Civil Division of the Sheriff’s Department, together with an order as described in the above paragraphs.”

Plaintiff’s motion was not made under oath, nor did it state why the civil division of the sheriff’s department could not be used.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 145, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exchange-national-bank-of-chicago-v-rotocast-plastic-products-inc-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack