Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles

757 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6197, 2000 WL 668163

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-264

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 757 So. 2d 1261 (Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles) 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

Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles, 757 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6197, 2000 WL 668163 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question raised on this appeal from a denial of a motion to set aside a default is whether the substituted service effected on the defendant was defective because of the plaintiffs failure to file an appropriate affidavit of compliance as required by section 48.161, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with the trial court that compliance was excused because, although the certified mailing to the defendant was returned marked “unclaimed,” •the record shows that, in fact, the defendant deliberately refused to accept delivery of the transmittal. Waxoyl, A.G., v. Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, 711 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Cortez Dev. Co. v. New York Capital Group, 401 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Richardson v. Williams, 201 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN, J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question raised on this appeal from a denial of a motion to set aside a default is whether the substituted service effected on the defendant was defective because of the plaintiffs failure to file an appropriate affidavit of compliance as required by section 48.161, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with the trial court that compliance was excused because, although the certified mailing to the defendant was returned marked “unclaimed,” •the record shows that, in fact, the defendant deliberately refused to accept delivery of the transmittal. Waxoyl, A.G., v. Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, 711 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Cortez Dev. Co. v. New York Capital Group, 401 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Richardson v. Williams, 201 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 So. 2d 1261, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6197, 2000 WL 668163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oteman-sa-v-napoles-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack