Williams v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Brown

622 So. 2d 194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8481, 1993 WL 310735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1993

DocketNo. 93-0796

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 194 (Williams v. Brown) 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

Williams v. Brown, 622 So. 2d 194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8481, 1993 WL 310735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in a mortgage foreclosure, argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to quash service of process, where she was served while attending a meeting at the office of counsel for the appellee mortgagee. Appellant, a Florida resident, relies on cases in which personal service has been quashed where the person served was enticed into the jurisdiction by fraud or deceit. Citrexsa, S.A. v. Landsman, 528 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and cases cited therein. We conclude that since appellant is a Florida resident, the fact that she may have been lured to a meeting to be served is not a basis on which service should be quashed. Schwarz v. Artcraft Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., 110 F.2d 465 (2d Cir.1940), and Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1076 (1987).

Defendant also argues that the appointment of a receiver for this 24 unit rental apartment building was improper and that the $2,000.00 receiver’s bond was too low. We affirm the appointment of a receiver but conclude that the bond was inadequate. Stonebridge Assocs. Ltd. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami, 573 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We therefore reverse [195]*195solely for the trial court to set an appropriate receiver’s bond.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in a mortgage foreclosure, argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to quash service of process, where she was served while attending a meeting at the office of counsel for the appellee mortgagee. Appellant, a Florida resident, relies on cases in which personal service has been quashed where the person served was enticed into the jurisdiction by fraud or deceit. Citrexsa, S.A. v. Landsman, 528 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and cases cited therein. We conclude that since appellant is a Florida resident, the fact that she may have been lured to a meeting to be served is not a basis on which service should be quashed. Schwarz v. Artcraft Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., 110 F.2d 465 (2d Cir.1940), and Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1076 (1987).

Defendant also argues that the appointment of a receiver for this 24 unit rental apartment building was improper and that the $2,000.00 receiver’s bond was too low. We affirm the appointment of a receiver but conclude that the bond was inadequate. Stonebridge Assocs. Ltd. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami, 573 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We therefore reverse [195]*195solely for the trial court to set an appropriate receiver’s bond.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8481, 1993 WL 310735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-brown-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack