Hull v. LENDING HOUSE, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hull v. LENDING HOUSE, INC.

19 So. 3d 404, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12821, 2009 WL 2762821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 2009

Docket3D08-3323

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 So. 3d 404 (Hull v. LENDING HOUSE, 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

Hull v. LENDING HOUSE, INC., 19 So. 3d 404, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12821, 2009 WL 2762821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

De Armand L. Hull appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate a default. We treat this as an appeal from a non-final order determining jurisdiction of the person, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i); Aventura Beach Club Condo. Ass’n v. Blaustein, 997 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Palamara v. World Class Yachts, Inc., 824 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and affirm.

There is record evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that substitute service on defendant Hull was appropriate. §§ 49.021, .031, .041, Fla. Stat. (2008). There was evidence that the defendant’s residence was inaccessible and that, despite several attempts, the process server could not gain access to the property by any reasonable means to serve the papers personally. There was no direct access from the street to the property.

*405 Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order denying Hull’s motion to vacate, that order is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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