Jag Enterprises v. E&G Associates, Inc.

Florida Circuit Courts

Jag Enterprises v. E&G Associates, Inc.

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 139

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1989

DocketCase No. 88-057-AP (County Court Case No. 87-3938CC21)

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 139 (Jag Enterprises v. E&G Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jag Enterprises v. E&G Associates, Inc., 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 139 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the lower court’s decision to set aside a default and default final judgment because of insufficient service of process. The main issue relates to interpreting Fla. Stat. Section 83.22(1) which allows service by posting to the premises when a defendant cannot be found within the county.

[140]*140The plaintiff asserts that the primary corporate officers of the defendant were not located in Dade County and therefore the posting was permitted. Fla. Stat. Section 48.08l(l)(d) allows service on a business agent in the absence of officers and directors. Judge Levine found that the plaintiff either had knowledge or should have had knowledge that a business agent was answerable for service. The plaintiff in fact had been collecting rent from such an agent in Dade County and it had a phone number.

We also reject other grounds the landlord raises except the nondispositive ground that F.S. 48.081 is the exclusive means to serve a corporation. See Woodley Lane, Inc. v Nolen, 147 So.2d 569 (2d DCA Fla. 1982).

With a corporate defendant, if any of the persons enumerated in F.S. 48.081(1) are located in the county, an attempt should be made to serve any and all of them.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the lower court’s decision to set aside a default and default final judgment because of insufficient service of process. The main issue relates to interpreting Fla. Stat. Section 83.22(1) which allows service by posting to the premises when a defendant cannot be found within the county.

[140]*140The plaintiff asserts that the primary corporate officers of the defendant were not located in Dade County and therefore the posting was permitted. Fla. Stat. Section 48.08l(l)(d) allows service on a business agent in the absence of officers and directors. Judge Levine found that the plaintiff either had knowledge or should have had knowledge that a business agent was answerable for service. The plaintiff in fact had been collecting rent from such an agent in Dade County and it had a phone number.

We also reject other grounds the landlord raises except the nondispositive ground that F.S. 48.081 is the exclusive means to serve a corporation. See Woodley Lane, Inc. v Nolen, 147 So.2d 569 (2d DCA Fla. 1982).

With a corporate defendant, if any of the persons enumerated in F.S. 48.081(1) are located in the county, an attempt should be made to serve any and all of them.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Fla. Supp. 2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jag-enterprises-v-eg-associates-inc-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack