Woide v. Fannie Mae

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woide v. Fannie Mae

116 So. 3d 1281, 2013 WL 3480088, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11077

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-4276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 So. 3d 1281 (Woide v. Fannie Mae) 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

Woide v. Fannie Mae, 116 So. 3d 1281, 2013 WL 3480088, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11077 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Charles and Susannah Woide, timely appeal a non-final order denying their motion to quash service of process. They argue the summonses with which they were served were defective because neither contained the deputy clerk’s signature or the circuit court’s official seal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a). Appellee, Fannie Mae, properly concedes error. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a); § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Ball v. Jones, 65 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1953) (“When the Rule mandatorily requires that the summons shall be ‘issued by the Clerk’, it requires that the Clerk, or his lawfully authorized deputy, sign such summons as a ‘testimonial by which the authenticity of the summons is made to appear.” ’); see also Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So.3d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions.”). Accordingly, because the summonses failed to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), we reverse the order of the trial court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Charles and Susannah Woide, timely appeal a non-final order denying their motion to quash service of process. They argue the summonses with which they were served were defective because neither contained the deputy clerk’s signature or the circuit court’s official seal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a). Appellee, Fannie Mae, properly concedes error. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a); § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Ball v. Jones, 65 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1953) (“When the Rule mandatorily requires that the summons shall be ‘issued by the Clerk’, it requires that the Clerk, or his lawfully authorized deputy, sign such summons as a ‘testimonial by which the authenticity of the summons is made to appear.” ’); see also Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So.3d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions.”). Accordingly, because the summonses failed to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), we reverse the order of the trial court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 3d 1281, 2013 WL 3480088, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woide-v-fannie-mae-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack