Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

146 So. 3d 1207, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13002, 2014 WL 4160005

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5630

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 So. 3d 1207 (Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) 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

Yelton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 146 So. 3d 1207, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13002, 2014 WL 4160005 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the non-final order on appeal denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. The order states that Appellant waived her defense of lack of jurisdiction by filing a pro se motion for enlargement of time to respond to Appellee’s mortgage foreclosure complaint. However, a motion for enlargement of time that does not go to the merits of the case is not “active participation” in the proceedings, and therefore, does not constitute submission to the court’s jurisdiction and waiver of any objection to service of process. See DeGiovanni v. BAG Home Loans Serv., L.P., 83 So.3d 934, 935-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Byers v. VIA Card Services, N.A., 82 So.3d 1166, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So.2d 590, 590-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the non-final order on appeal denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. The order states that Appellant waived her defense of lack of jurisdiction by filing a pro se motion for enlargement of time to respond to Appellee’s mortgage foreclosure complaint. However, a motion for enlargement of time that does not go to the merits of the case is not “active participation” in the proceedings, and therefore, does not constitute submission to the court’s jurisdiction and waiver of any objection to service of process. See DeGiovanni v. BAG Home Loans Serv., L.P., 83 So.3d 934, 935-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Byers v. VIA Card Services, N.A., 82 So.3d 1166, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So.2d 590, 590-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 1207, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13002, 2014 WL 4160005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yelton-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack