Gondal v. Martinez

606 So. 2d 490, 1992 WL 296045
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 20, 1992
Docket92-1417
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 606 So. 2d 490 (Gondal v. Martinez) 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
Gondal v. Martinez, 606 So. 2d 490, 1992 WL 296045 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

606 So.2d 490 (1992)

Thair GONDAL, Appellant,
v.
Maria MARTINEZ and Miguel Martinez, Appellees.

No. 92-1417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 20, 1992.

*491 Robert G. Corirossi, Miami, and Amir Fleischer, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Garel and Jacobs and Jeffrey A. Jacobs, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Where a complaint fails, as here, to allege that the defendant is a nonresident of the State, or a resident of Florida who subsequently became a nonresident, or a resident of Florida concealing his where-abouts, service on the secretary of state is ineffective to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. Journell v. Vitanzo, 472 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Filing of an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry over seven hundred days after the complaint was filed, and while a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to rule 1.070(j),[1] Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, was pending, did not preclude the dismissal as the affidavit did not cure the complaint defect, nor did it constitute good grounds to deny the rule 1.070(j) motion. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (fact that process was served prior to filing of defendant's rule 1.070(j) motion to dismiss did not give court discretion to deny motion).

Reversed.

NOTES

[1] Summons-Time Limit. If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after filing of the initial pleading and the party on whose behalf service is required does not show good cause why service was not made within that time, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice or that defendant dropped as a party on the court's own initiative after notice or on motion.

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

Related

National Powerboat Ass'n v. Calabro
652 So. 2d 508 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Crews v. Shadburne
637 So. 2d 979 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Comisky v. Rosen Management Service, Inc.
630 So. 2d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Comisky v. Rosen Management Service
630 So. 2d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, SA
619 So. 2d 348 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Hagan v. Cloutier
616 So. 2d 508 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
606 So. 2d 490, 1992 WL 296045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gondal-v-martinez-fladistctapp-1992.