Woodworth v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodworth v. Smith

773 So. 2d 1170, 2000 WL 1700216

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-1543

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 1170 (Woodworth v. Smith) 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

Woodworth v. Smith, 773 So. 2d 1170, 2000 WL 1700216 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

In this interlocutory appeal, Timothy Woodworth appeals the denial of his motion to quash service of process. He argues that the trial court erred in finding compliance with the requirements for substituted service in chapter 48, Florida Statutes (1997). We agree and reverse.

The trial court found that Mr. Woodworth had actual notice based on regular mail. The statutory requirements for substituted service of process are strictly construed. See George Fischer, Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Pertinent to this case, the statute requires that “[n]otice of service and a copy of the process [served on the public officer designated by law] shall be sent forthwith by registered or certified mail by the plaintiff or his or her attorney to the defendant....” § 48.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added).

The failure to comply with the statutory requirements has been excused when the record shows that the party to be served is deliberately refusing to accept delivery. See, e.g., Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles, 757 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The limited record in this case does not demonstrate that Mr. Woodworth has refused to accept delivery, and the trial court did not make such a finding. The trial court’s order only found that Mr. Wood-worth had actual notice based on regular mail. This was insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed and remanded to quash the service of process.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

In this interlocutory appeal, Timothy Woodworth appeals the denial of his motion to quash service of process. He argues that the trial court erred in finding compliance with the requirements for substituted service in chapter 48, Florida Statutes (1997). We agree and reverse.

The trial court found that Mr. Woodworth had actual notice based on regular mail. The statutory requirements for substituted service of process are strictly construed. See George Fischer, Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Pertinent to this case, the statute requires that “[n]otice of service and a copy of the process [served on the public officer designated by law] shall be sent forthwith by registered or certified mail by the plaintiff or his or her attorney to the defendant....” § 48.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added).

The failure to comply with the statutory requirements has been excused when the record shows that the party to be served is deliberately refusing to accept delivery. See, e.g., Oteman, S.A. v. Napoles, 757 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The limited record in this case does not demonstrate that Mr. Woodworth has refused to accept delivery, and the trial court did not make such a finding. The trial court’s order only found that Mr. Wood-worth had actual notice based on regular mail. This was insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed and remanded to quash the service of process.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1170, 2000 WL 1700216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodworth-v-smith-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack