Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Gonzalez
This text of 951 So. 2d 1037 (Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Gonzalez) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff appeals from an order quashing substituted service of process secured, purportedly under section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at her home with a woman who was the mother of one defendant and the mother-in-law of the other. The trial court’s ruling was correct and is affirmed because an undisputed affidavit demonstrated that neither of the defendants had lived at that address for five years, and thus that it was not their “usual place of abode” as the statute requires. See State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 496, 195 So. 145 (1940); Alvarez v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 635 So.2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also DeArmas v. E & W Body Shop Supplies, Inc., 622 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); cf. Small v. Chicola, 929 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). That the defendants actually received the complaint and summons does not affect the result. See Hovarth v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 634 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Moschetta v. Atl. Nat’l Bank of Broward, 540 So.2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
951 So. 2d 1037, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4542, 2007 WL 911779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc-v-gonzalez-fladistctapp-2007.