Fein v. Pinnacle Investments & Consulting Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fein v. Pinnacle Investments & Consulting Group, Inc.

48 So. 3d 1029, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18628, 2010 WL 4961832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 2010

DocketNo. 4D09-3055

StatusPublished

This text of 48 So. 3d 1029 (Fein v. Pinnacle Investments & Consulting Group, 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

Fein v. Pinnacle Investments & Consulting Group, Inc., 48 So. 3d 1029, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18628, 2010 WL 4961832 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

Bud Fein appeals a personal judgment entered against him in the amount of $80,000. Because Fein was not properly served with process in the underlying case, the judgment is void.

Fein is a former partner of the general partnership, Fein & Walker (“the partnership”). The partnership, through its gen[1030]*1030eral partner, entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to a foreclosure action. Fein was neither served with process in the underlying foreclosure action nor a signatory to the settlement agreement. When allegations arose that the partnership violated terms of the settlement agreement, a motion was filed against the partnership seeking enforcement of that agreement. Subsequently, a hearing was held on the motion to enforce, resulting in entry of a final judgment against the partnership, as well as against Fein, individually. Fein was never given notice of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, or of the related hearing. Fein was not present at the hearing and no attorney appeared on his behalf.

Irrespective of the notice issue, the final judgment entered against Fein is void because he was never individually served with process, so he was not a party to the underlying case. “‘A judgment entered ■without service of process is void.’ ” M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)). Additionally, a judgment entered against partners, in their individual capacity, is only given effect as to the partners actually served. See Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). To allow the instant final judgment to stand would violate basic principles of due process. As such, the personal judgment against Fein, individually, is void.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

Bud Fein appeals a personal judgment entered against him in the amount of $80,000. Because Fein was not properly served with process in the underlying case, the judgment is void.

Fein is a former partner of the general partnership, Fein & Walker (“the partnership”). The partnership, through its gen[1030]*1030eral partner, entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to a foreclosure action. Fein was neither served with process in the underlying foreclosure action nor a signatory to the settlement agreement. When allegations arose that the partnership violated terms of the settlement agreement, a motion was filed against the partnership seeking enforcement of that agreement. Subsequently, a hearing was held on the motion to enforce, resulting in entry of a final judgment against the partnership, as well as against Fein, individually. Fein was never given notice of the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, or of the related hearing. Fein was not present at the hearing and no attorney appeared on his behalf.

Irrespective of the notice issue, the final judgment entered against Fein is void because he was never individually served with process, so he was not a party to the underlying case. “‘A judgment entered ■without service of process is void.’ ” M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)). Additionally, a judgment entered against partners, in their individual capacity, is only given effect as to the partners actually served. See Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). To allow the instant final judgment to stand would violate basic principles of due process. As such, the personal judgment against Fein, individually, is void.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 1029, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18628, 2010 WL 4961832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fein-v-pinnacle-investments-consulting-group-inc-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack