Smith v. Alvarado

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Alvarado

737 So. 2d 630, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10081, 1999 WL 543268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0860

StatusPublished

This text of 737 So. 2d 630 (Smith v. Alvarado) 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

Smith v. Alvarado, 737 So. 2d 630, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10081, 1999 WL 543268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of orders that denied their motions to quash substitute service. They argue that the plaintiff did not strictly comply with the substitute service statutes as required. See Mercy Lu Enters., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 681 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); § 48.161, Fla. Stat. (1997).

We agree with the appellants. Plaintiff failed to mail the notice of service and a copy of the process to appellant Randall Smith d/b/a Smith Trucking “forthwith,” but rather mailed it approximately 115 days later. See Arison v. Offer, 626 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to file an affidavit of compliance with the court “on or before the return day of the process or within such time as the court allows,” See § 48.161(1).

Accordingly, we agree with appellants’ contention that the orders must be reversed because plaintiff failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 48.161.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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