Knaser v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Knaser v. Smith

323 So. 2d 643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1788

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 323 So. 2d 643 (Knaser v. Smith) 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

Knaser v. Smith, 323 So. 2d 643 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants-defendants, Robert L. Knaser and Knaser’s insurer, Reliance Insurance Company, appeal an order determining the validity of service of process on Appellant-Knaser and failure to dismiss an amended complaint in an action suggesting devastavit. We reverse.

Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs of the parties, we determine that since appellee’s cause of action as alleged against Appellant-Knaser arose prior to July 1, 1973, the effective date of Sections 48.193 and 48.-194, Florida Statutes, Knaser, a resident of the State of Ohio, was not subject to service of process perfected pursuant to these sections. See Barton v. Keyes Co., 305 So.2d 269 (Fla.App.1974); Marshall v. Johnson, 301 So.2d 134 (Fla.App.1974). Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Knaser’s person and erred in denying Knaser’s motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant-Knaser’s motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss appellee’s amended complaint as to appellant Knaser only.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants-defendants, Robert L. Knaser and Knaser’s insurer, Reliance Insurance Company, appeal an order determining the validity of service of process on Appellant-Knaser and failure to dismiss an amended complaint in an action suggesting devastavit. We reverse.

Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs of the parties, we determine that since appellee’s cause of action as alleged against Appellant-Knaser arose prior to July 1, 1973, the effective date of Sections 48.193 and 48.-194, Florida Statutes, Knaser, a resident of the State of Ohio, was not subject to service of process perfected pursuant to these sections. See Barton v. Keyes Co., 305 So.2d 269 (Fla.App.1974); Marshall v. Johnson, 301 So.2d 134 (Fla.App.1974). Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Knaser’s person and erred in denying Knaser’s motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant-Knaser’s motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss appellee’s amended complaint as to appellant Knaser only.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 So. 2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knaser-v-smith-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack