SIERRA HOLDING v. Sharp Electronics

471 So. 2d 196, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1526, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14633
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1985
Docket84-2735
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 471 So. 2d 196 (SIERRA HOLDING v. Sharp Electronics) 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
SIERRA HOLDING v. Sharp Electronics, 471 So. 2d 196, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1526, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14633 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

471 So.2d 196 (1985)

SIERRA HOLDING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP., Appellee.

No. 84-2735.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 19, 1985.

*197 Henry W. Clar, Miami, for appellant.

Thomas A. Truex of Jacobson and Gottlieb, Hollywood, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

While we are inclined to the view that where a corporation is in flagrant violation of section 48.091, Florida Statutes (1983), the requirement of diligent search and inquiry imposed as a condition precedent to constructive service of process should be considerably relaxed, we find no necessity for the application of that view here as diligent search and inquiry was abundantly established.

We are nonetheless compelled to reverse the trial court's denial of an application to quash service of process for two reasons. Appellee failed to give notice of hearing on the motion. This is fatal on due process grounds. See Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Reversal is also required because of appellee's failure to comply with the notice of service of process requirement of section 48.161, Florida Statutes. See Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Rossmoore, 271 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). See also Bejar v. Garcia, 354 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

On remand appellee will be permitted to perfect service of process, renew its motion and notice the same for hearing in due course.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Miami Chinese Community Center Ltd. v. Consolidated Bank, N.A.
666 So. 2d 596 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
PELYCADO ONROEREND v. Ruthenberg
635 So. 2d 1001 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Arison v. Offer
626 So. 2d 1039 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Dowd v. Nairn
478 So. 2d 1205 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
State v. Ross
471 So. 2d 196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 So. 2d 196, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1526, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-holding-v-sharp-electronics-fladistctapp-1985.