Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

95 So. 3d 1051, 2012 WL 3758640, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2012

DocketNo. 5D11-1935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 So. 3d 1051 (Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) 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

Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So. 3d 1051, 2012 WL 3758640, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14621 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Charles and Julia Schofield appeal the non-final order entered by the trial court denying their motion to quash service of process.¹ Because the process server failed to strictly comply with section 48.081(5), Florida Statutes (2009), we reverse.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against the Schofields. A process server personally served Julia Schofield and served Charles, through Julia, with a summons, a copy of the complaint, and a notice of lis pendens. However, the process server failed to include the date and time of service, his identification number, or his initials on any of the documents served on the Schofields.

The Schofields filed a motion to quash service of process and a verification of pleading, asserting that the process server failed to comply with the terms of section 48.031(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The statute provides: “A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.” The trial court entered an order denying the Schofields’ motion.

The Schofields argue that the trial court should have granted their motion to quash because the process server failed to comply with section 48.031(5). We agree.

Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions. See Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So.2d 952, 954 (Fla.2001) (holding that “statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced”); Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that “courts require strict construction of, and compliance with, the provisions of statutes governing service of process”). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Schofields’ motion to quash service of process.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and EVANDER, J. concur.

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

PALMER, J.

Charles and Julia Schofield appeal the non-final order entered by the trial court denying their motion to quash service of process.¹ Because the process server failed to strictly comply with section 48.081(5), Florida Statutes (2009), we reverse.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against the Schofields. A process server personally served Julia Schofield and served Charles, through Julia, with a summons, a copy of the complaint, and a notice of lis pendens. However, the process server failed to include the date and time of service, his identification number, or his initials on any of the documents served on the Schofields.

The Schofields filed a motion to quash service of process and a verification of pleading, asserting that the process server failed to comply with the terms of section 48.031(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The statute provides: “A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.” The trial court entered an order denying the Schofields’ motion.

The Schofields argue that the trial court should have granted their motion to quash because the process server failed to comply with section 48.031(5). We agree.

Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions. See Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So.2d 952, 954 (Fla.2001) (holding that “statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced”); Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that “courts require strict construction of, and compliance with, the provisions of statutes governing service of process”). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Schofields’ motion to quash service of process.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and EVANDER, J. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 3d 1051, 2012 WL 3758640, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schofield-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack