CopyCited 47 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 3390911
...Reed, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Orlando, for Appellee. SAWAYA, J. The issue we must resolve is whether a return of service is legally insufficient on its face if it does not specify the date and time the process server received the summons and complaint for service, as required by section 48.21, Florida Statutes (2006)....
...amended complaint and to quash process, service of process, and return of process. This motion argued that the return of service was defective for failing to accurately record the date and time the summonses and complaint came to hand as required by section 48.21, Florida Statutes, and focused on the fact that the affidavits setting forth the return of service erroneously stated the summonses and complaint were received by the process server, or "came to hand," on June 30, 2006, at 5:24 p.m., when the summonses were not issued until July 3, 2006....
...proof of valid service is submitted. Klosenski,
116 So.2d at 769; Schneiderman v. Cantor,
546 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Tetley v. Lett,
462 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The statutory provisions that govern return of service are found in section
48.21, which specifically provides: *472 Each person who effects service of process shall note on a return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time when it comes to hand, the date and time when it is served, the manner of service,...
...issued. On amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. A failure to state all the facts in the return shall subject the person effecting service to a fine not exceeding $10, in the court's discretion. § 48.21, Fla....
...(2006). In the present case, the return of service was defective on its face because it not only failed to accurately note the date and time the process came to hand, but also it actually stated that it came to hand before the summonses were even issued. § 48.21, Fla....
...[,] failed to note the time when the process came into hand and the time it was executed. Both are statutory requirements of a proper return of execution of process. Failure to state the times invalidates the service."); Gonzalez,
472 So.2d at 863 ("Section
48.21, Florida Statutes (1979)[,] requires those serving process to record, among other things, the manner of execution of the process and the name of the person served. A failure to record those facts invalidates the service, unless it is amended."); Trawick, supra, § 8:20. Of course, under section
48.21, NLAC was permitted to correct the error by amending the return of service, and NLAC did in fact file amended affidavits in an effort to remedy the problem....
...tirely omitted the time that the process came to hand and, rather than state the specific date, it merely averred that it was received by the process server "[o]n or about July 7, 2006." NLAC essentially argues that despite the clear requirements of section 48.21, it is not necessary to include in the return of service the specific date and time the process was received by the process server....
...We disagree. The Legislature underscored the importance of including all of the required information by specifically providing that "failure to state all the facts in the return" shall, at the court's discretion, subject the process server to a civil penalty. § 48.21, Fla....
...Instead, such jurisdiction is suspended and will lie dormant until NLAC submits proper proof of service. This will require a hearing or submission of proper affidavits by NLAC from the process server providing the necessary information mandated by section 48.21....
CopyCited 32 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1745, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14997
...In this case, service was made under section
48.031, Florida Statutes (1979) by attempting to deliver the summons and complaint to Olga Gonzalez at her "usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents." Section
48.21, Florida Statutes (1979) requires those serving process to record, among other things, the manner of execution of the process and the name of the person served. A failure to record those facts invalidates the service, unless it is amended. §
48.21, Fla....
...construed). The return here did not reflect the name of the person served, merely indicating that a Jane Doe was served. With regard to the manner of execution, there is no indication that the person served was over 15 years old. Consequently, under section 48.21 and the cases which strictly construe substituted service provisions, the return of service was defective and the service was invalid....
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 63, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 203, 2015 WL 463509
...OF VALID SERVICE, REQUIRED TO EXPRESSLY LIST THE
FACTORS DEFINING THE “MANNER OF SERVICE”
INDICATED ON THE RETURN THAT ARE OTHERWISE
IDENTIFIED IN STATUTES DEFINING SERVICE BUT ARE
NOT INCLUDED IN THE FACIAL LANGUAGE OF SECTION
48.21 DEFINING INVALID SERVICE?
Id....
...negative. We hold that a facially valid return of service is not required to expressly
list the factors defining the “manner of service” contained in section
48.031(1)(a),
Florida Statutes (2009), which are not included in the requirements of section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2009), defining valid return of service.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arose as a result of a complaint filed by Carol Sullivan against
Lance Koster....
...sumption that service was proper and
denied his motion.
Koster appealed the trial court’s decision to the Second District Court of
Appeal challenging the denial of his motion. Because the return of service met the
textual requirements of section
48.21, the Second District stated that the issue was
whether meeting the requirements of that section included listing the elements of
the “manner of service” from section
48.031(1)(a) to establish that the return was
regular on its face. Koster,
103 So. 3d at 885. The district court rejected Koster’s
argument that in specifying the manner of service under section
48.21, the process
server was also required to list the specific factors for substitute service under
section
48.031(1)(a). Id. at 886. The court added: “But the determination that a
return is regular on its face, no matter what type of service, is governed only by the
language of section
48.21 and does not require express reference to section
48.031(1)(a) or any other statute that serves to define a specified manner of
service.” Id....
...The court noted that evidence that any of the factors listed in
-3-
section
48.031(1)(a) were not present in the service could be used by Koster in
rebutting the presumption of service; however, a strict construction of section
48.21 did not require an explicit identification of those factors in the return of
service....
...District Court of Appeal and certified the above question as one of great public
importance. Id. at 886-87. We granted review based on the certified question.
ANALYSIS
Two statutes are at issue in this case. Section
48.21 governs the return of
execution of process, and section
48.031(1)(a) governs service of process
generally. In sum, Koster argues that a valid return of service under section
48.21
requires the express inclusion of the factors contained in section
48.031(1)(a).
Relevant Statutes and Standard of Review
When process was served in this case, section
48.21 provided as follows:
48.21 Return of execution of process....
...On amendment, service is as
effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. A
failure to state all the facts in the return shall subject the person
effecting service to a fine not exceeding $10, in the court’s discretion.2
§ 48.21, Fla....
...of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors
who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this
section.
§
48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009).
The certified question involves the interpretation of section
48.21 and, more
specifically, requires this Court to determine whether, in addition to the
requirements of section
48.21, a facially valid return of service must also include
the factors relating to manner of service under section
48.031(1)(a). Because the
certified question involves the interpretation of a Florida statute, the proper
standard of review is de novo. See Tasker v. State,
48 So. 3d 798, 804 (Fla. 2010).
2. The applicable portion of section
48.21 was amended by chapter
2011-159, § 5, at 2863, Laws of Florida, after the service of process in
Koster....
...is received by the
process server, (2) the date and time that process is served, (3) the manner of
service, and (4) the name of the person served and, if the person is served in a
representative capacity, the position occupied by the person. See § 48.21, Fla. Stat.
The party who seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving proper service. This burden requires the party to demonstrate that the
return of service is, under section 48.21, facially valid or regular on its face. A
return of service that is regular on its face must include the statutory factors
contained in section 48.21....
...by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id. at 471 (citing Klosenski,
116 So. 2d at 769).
Koster
There is no question that the return of service in Koster satisfies the express
statutory requirements of section
48.21....
...ns and complaint, the date and
time of service, that the manner of service was substitute service, and that the
person served was Pat Hassett, Koster’s sister-in-law and co-resident. But, the
issue in this case boils down to how specific, under section 48.21, a return of
service must be to be deemed valid on its face....
...sister-in-law, Pat Hassett, was a person fifteen years of age or older, and that
Hassett was informed of the contents of the document with which she was being
served.
-8-
However, the language in section
48.21 does not expressly incorporate
section
48.031, nor does it refer to the factors contained within section
48.031(1)(a). Section
48.21 clearly states the information that shall be included in
a return of service. Thus, section
48.21 cannot be strictly read to require that the
factors in section
48.031(1)(a) be specified. It is still important, though, to state
more than just the fact that the manner of service was “substitute.” For instance,
the name of the person who accepted substitute service must be listed, as provided
in section
48.21....
...e requirements of the manner of service.
Thus, Standley does not support Koster’s argument that a facially valid return of
service requires the inclusion of the factors outlined in section
48.031(1)(a).
Interpreting Section
48.21
“In construing a statute we are to give effect to the Legislature’s intent....
...express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an
abrogation of legislative power.’ ” Holly v. Auld,
450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984)
(quoting Am. Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Fla. v. Williams,
212 So. 2d 777, 778
(Fla. 1st DCA 1968)).
Section
48.21 clearly and unambiguously requires that a return of service
include certain information. In fact, the Legislature left no discretion in this
regard. In addition to the use of the word “shall,” the Legislature also provided a
consequence for failure to comply with the statute’s requirements. Section
48.21
provides that although a failure to state the required facts is not fatal to the cause of
action, it does invalidate the service itself.3 The Legislature’s specific provisions
in this regard provide further reason not to read additional requirements into the
statute....
...ed. The statute as written does
not require the express inclusion of the factors in section
48.031(1)(a). Because
the Legislature is best positioned to make a policy determination as to what should
or must be included in a return of service under section
48.21, we decline to
expand the requirements as Koster requests.
Although we conclude that the factors in section
48.031(1)(a) are not
required to be expressly set forth in the return of service, we emphasize the
importance that all process servers strictly ascertain and comply with the general
requirements of the service of process statutes.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we answer the certified question in the negative and
hold that section
48.21 does not require the express statement of the factors of
section
48.031(1)(a) in a return of service in order for the return to be facially
valid....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12980, 2011 WL 3586179
...Gonzalez involved a return that was shown prima facie to be defective on its face, and therefore the presumption of valid service was unavailable to the plaintiff. This determination was made by simply reviewing the four corners of the return to see if it contained all of the information required by the applicable statute: Section 48.21, Florida Statutes (1979) requires those serving process to record, among other things, the manner of execution of the process and the name of the person served....
...Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this section.” . See, e.g., Gonzalez,
472 So.2d at 861 (return of service was not regular on its face where return itself failed to contain a statement of the manner in which service was made and the name of person served, both of which are required under section
48.21, Florida Statutes); Nat’l Safety Assocs., Inc....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
considering the provisions of Florida Statute §
48.021, F.S.A., the appellee may be reimbursed the cost
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 823, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13221
actual service of process on the garnishee. Section
48.021, Florida Statutes (1983), states that all process
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 12396
service of process is on the plaintiff. Id. Section
48.021(1), Florida Statutes, establishes three categories
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
only persons qualified to serve process, citing F.S.
48.021 which provides as follows: "All process shall
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2400891, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10393
...copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this section. (emphasis added). Section 48.21, Florida Statutes (2009), which is titled “Return of execution of process,” provides, in relevant part, as follows: Return of execution of process....
...On amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts.... (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Wells Fargo’s assertion, the verified return of service is not regular on its face because it fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in sections
48.031(l)(a) and
48.21....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11288, 2010 WL 3023386
...The process server placed his initials and the date of service on the copy delivered to the girlfriend but did not record the time of service on the copy of the complaint left with the girlfriend. The return of service fully complied with the statutory provisions contained in section 48.21, Florida Statutes, and noted the date and time of service; that the person at Vidal's place of abode was over the age of 15 years; and that the process server had informed the person served of the contents of the complaint as well as leaving a copy of the complaint with her....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 69114
...Both are statutory requirements of a proper return of execution of process. Failure to state the times invalidates the service. The return is amendable at any time. Once amended, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. § 48.21, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 707290
in Lake County pursuant to Florida Statutes section
48.021(3). See, e.g., Cheshire v. Birenbaum, 688 So
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4798610, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17423
DAVIS, Judge. Lance Koster challenges the order denying his motion to set aside default, set aside partial final default judgment, and quash service of process. Because a strict reading of section 48.21, Florida Statutes (2010), supports the trial court’s finding that the return of service was regular on its face and the record also supports the trial court’s finding that Koster failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective service, we affirm....
...fore Sullivan should be denied the presumption of service. Accordingly, the issue before this court is the facial validity of the return of service filed below by Sullivan. The requirements of facial validity for a return of service are set forth in section 48.21, Florida Statutes, the applicable version of which reads as follows: Each person who effects service of process shall note on a return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time when it comes to hand, the date and time when it...
...On amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. A failure to state all the facts in the return shall subject the person effecting service to a fine not exceeding $10, in the court’s discretion. Koster argued below that for the return of service to be sufficient under section 48.21, the term “manner of service” must be strictly construed....
...ed to her, the return was defective. The trial court disagreed and found that the return was regular on its face and was evidence of proper service. We agree that it is clear that the return of service at issue here meets the textual requirements of section 48.21....
...2d DCA 1966) (“Statutes authorizing constructive service of process must be strictly construed and exactly followed in order for a [trial] court to acquire jurisdiction.”). But the determination that a return is regular on its face, no matter what type of service, is governed only by the language of section
48.21 and does not require express reference to section
48.031(l)(a) or any other statute that serves to define a specified manner of service....
...f service— and under Robles-Martinez and Walton must be strictly construed by the courts when evaluated in that context — the term “regular on its face” does not appear to have been given explicit definition or application beyond the text of section
48.21. Therefore, in evaluating a determination of the facial regularity of a return, we do not read a strict construction of section
48.21 to also require an explicit identification of the individual requirements of section
48.031(l)(a) in order for the return of service to be deemed regular on its face. See §
48.21; see also Carone v....
...ned substitute service on the defendant by serving her father at her home” and “that the defendant’s father resided at the home”); Re-Emp’t Servs.,
969 So.2d at 471-72 (“The statutory provisions that govern return of service are found in section
48.21_In the present case, the return of service was defective on its face because it ... failed to accurately note .... [the] statutory requirements [outlined in section
48.21] of a proper return of execution of process.”)....
...4th DCA 2010) (“Neither the original nor the amended return of service showed the absence of the statutorily prescribed [, pursuant to section
48.081,] superior classes of persons who could have been served.”); Gonzalez,
472 So.2d at 864 (suggesting that in addition to deficiencies in a return under section
48.21, the lack of a requirement listed in section
48.031(l)(a) could make a return of service defective on its face). Neither Bomstein nor Gonzalez offer support beyond the idea of strictly construing service statutes for their determinations that the absence of a service requirement not specifically identified in *886 section
48.21 impacts the initial determination of whether a return is regular on its face....
...ies, Herskowitz v. Schwarz & Schiffrin,
411 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), involved returns of service that failed to identify the name of the person who was served, both returns were defective on their faces solely based on the express terms of section
48.21 without the need of referencing section
48.031. 2 And absent these unsupported cases, strict construction of neither statute requires that the process server expressly identify the individual requirements of section
48.031 in order to fully comply with section
48.21. Thus, despite the Third District’s appearing to conclude otherwise, we conclude that identifying the manner of service as substitute and otherwise fully complying with the express requirements of section
48.21 is sufficient to deem this return regular on its face and to establish the presumption of valid service in favor of Sullivan....
...ttempted). But because Gonzalez, Herskowitz, and the cases relying on them also could be read to conclude that returns of service may be facially defective for failing to specify factors identified in service-related statutes not expressly listed in section
48.21, we certify conflict with those cases as well as Robles-Martinez,
88 So.3d 177 , which also appears to adopt that reasoning....
...not been clearly articulated as necessarily including an express listing of the statutory factors constituting the identified method of service on a return of service within the initial evaluation of the sufficiency of returns of service pursuant to section 48.21, and because that interpretation is a matter of great public importance where a clear understanding of the service statutes is necessary to effectuate legal service of process and provide adequate due process of law, we certify the foll...
...LED TO A PRESUMPTION OF VALID SERVICE, REQUIRED TO EXPRESSLY LIST THE FACTORS DEFINING THE *887 “MANNER OF SERVICE” INDICATED ON THE RETURN THAT ARE OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED IN STATUTES DEFINING SERVICE BUT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FACIAL LANGUAGE OF SECTION 48.21 DEFINING INVALID SERVICE? Affirmed; question certified; conflict certified. SILBERMAN, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur. . As introduced at the hearing on Koster's motion, the instant return of service listed the requirements of section 48.21 and also indicated that service was executed "in accordance with State statutes in the manner ... [of] substitute service” by way of the “sister-in-law/coresident. ’ ’ .The failure to comply with the express language of section 48.21 is also the basis for concluding that the return was invalid in a recent case relying on Bomstein....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2097, 2010 WL 624129
...tered agent: Jorge Ramos [address]" and that indeed Panchita had been served on October 20, 2004, by delivering a true copy to "Jorge Ramos as registered agent [address]." May 12, 2009: Ms. Seymour moved to amend the return of service pursuant to section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2004). August 6, 2009: That motion was granted, over seven years after the child's accident. [2] As to the corporate defendant in this case, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 and 1.080, and §§
48.081,
48.21,
607.0504 and
607.0505, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13419, 2016 WL 4645513
...manner of service as set forth in section
48.031 must be indicated in a valid return
3
of service.” Id. at 390. In rejecting this argument, the court acknowledged that the
return of service of process provision (section
48.21(1), Florida Statutes (2015))2,
clearly and unambiguously delineates what information must be contained in a
valid return of service. The court noted that “the language of section
48.21 does
not expressly incorporate section
48.031, nor does it refer to the factors contained
within section
48.031(1)(a).” The court refused to engraft the provisions of section
48.031 onto section
48.21, acknowledging it “has no power to ‘extend, modify, or
limit [the section’s] express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications’ by
adding requirements not present in the statute.” Id....
...at 389-90 (quoting Am.
Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Fla. v. Williams,
212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA
1968)).
Accordingly, Koster held that, to be considered regular on its face, a return
of service must contain the information set forth in section
48.21, but need not
contain information showing compliance with section
48.031(1)(a).3 Coutts has
2 Section
48.21(1) provides:
Each person who effects service of process shall note on a return-of-
service form attached thereto, the date and time when it comes to
hand, the date and time when it is served, the manner of servi...
... failed to distinguish Koster or to persuade us that its analysis in the context of
challenge under section
48.031(1)(a) is inapplicable in the context of a challenge
under section
48.031(6)(a). Applying Koster, we conclude that the return of
service complied with section
48.21 and contained the requisite information as set
forth in that provision.
The Koster court reaffirmed the initial burden placed on a plaintiff to
establish proper service:
The party who seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving proper service. The burden requires the party to
demonstrate that the return of service is, under section
48.21, facially
valid or regular on its face. A return of service that is regular on its
face must include the statutory factors contained in section
48.21.
Koster, 160 So....
...face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing evidence presented to the
contrary.” Telf Corp. v. Gomez,
671 So. 2d 818, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Coutts concedes that the return of service was regular on its face, containing
the information required by section
48.21....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Appellant, Laura Murphy, appeals the order denying her motion to quash service
of process. Appellant asserts that the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over
her because the amended affidavit of substitute service did not strictly comply with section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2015), as it does not provide the name of the person upon whom
service was made....
...the person of the defendant.’” Klosenski,
116 So. 2d at 769 (quoting Gibbens v. Pickett,
12 So. 17, 18 (Fla. 1893)).
The dispositive question in the present case is whether the amended affidavit of
service of process is regular or valid on its face. Section
48.21 governs the return of
execution of process....
...signature at any time on application to the court from which
the process issued. On amendment, service is as effective as
if the return had originally stated the omitted facts or included
the signature. . . .
§ 48.21, Fla....
...3d at 389 (citing Re-Emp’t Servs., Ltd.
v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co.,
969 So. 2d 467, 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).
3
Here, the amended affidavit of service of process is facially deficient under section
48.21 because it does not contain the name of the person served. Providing a physical
description of “John Doe” in lieu of providing the individual’s name is insufficient
compliance with section
48.21. Vives v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
128 So. 3d 9, 15 (Fla.
3d DCA 2012); see also Gonzalez v. Totalbank,
472 So. 2d 861, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
(holding that return of service indicating that a Jane Doe was served was defective under
section
48.21 and the service was invalid)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13657
...The name of a notary public appears without other identity of jurisdiction or seal. The document recites that appellant was served on January 13, 1983, at Route # 1, Box 158 in Gainesville, Georgia. It does not recite the time of service. The summons was apparently lost. Section 48.21, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: 48.21 Return of execution of process....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14930, 2015 WL 5827124
...vit and
return of service, made in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the
court below properly rejected that claim.
The Davidians’ second claim is that no evidence was presented to
demonstrate that the returns of service complied with section 48.21(1),
Florida Statutes (2015), which provides:
Each person who effects service of process shall note on a
return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time
when it comes to hand, the date and time when it is se...
...y. Bornstein,
39
So. 3d at 503 (quoting Re-Employment Servs.,
969 So. 2d at 470). In this
case, the returns of service were regular on their face. They contained the
information statutorily required. They were shown to comply with section
48.031 and
48.21, Florida Statutes (2015)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...to [the attorney].’”).
11
In Koster v. Sullivan,
160 So. 3d 385, 389 (Fla. 2015), the Florida
Supreme Court explained that a return of service is regular on its face if it
includes the statutory factors contained in section
48.21, Florida Statutes:
The party who seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction
bears the burden of proving proper service. This
burden requires the party to demonstrate that the
return of service is, under section
48.21, facially valid
or regular on its face. A return of service that is
regular on its face must include the statutory factors
contained in section
48.21....
...Schuler argues that the Return of Service was not regular on its face
because the written description of the person served did not exactly match
Schuler’s description. A written description, however, is not one of the
factors listed in section 48.21, and Schuler has not cited any authority that
supports the proposition that a return of service containing a description that
does not exactly match the description of a person served renders the return
facially irregular....
...Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co.,
969 So.
2d 467, 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“In the present case, the return of service
was defective on its face because it not only failed to accurately note the
12
The statutory factors set forth in section
48.21 are, in pertinent part, as
follows:
(1) Each person who effects service of process
shall note on a return-of-service form attached
thereto the date and time when it comes to hand, the...
...chapter to serve process and who effects such
service of process may sign the return-of-service
form using an electronic signature.
Here, the Return of Service included all the required statutory factors
in section 48.21 and was therefore regular on its face....
...3d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“Here, the
affidavits of service stated that the process server received the alias
summonses on September 10th, but they were not issued until September
12th. Thus, the affidavits are defective on their face under section 48.21
because they actually state that they ‘came to hand before the summonses
were even issued.’”); Bank of Am., N.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 3033498
quashed service of both writs. We reverse. Section
48.021, Florida Statutes (2003) and (2005), provides
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...complaint, petition, or
other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or
her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is
15 years of age or older and informing the person of their
contents.
Section 48.21, Florida Statutes, in turn, governs return of execution of
process:
(1) Each person who effects service of process shall note on a
return-of-service form attached thereto the date and time when it
comes to hand, the...
...and enforced.” Shurman,
795 So. 2d at 954. Here, the facts reveal both that
the return of service is facially deficient and that service was not properly
effectuated on Carus. First, to be regular on its face, a return of service must
contain the information set forth in section
48.21, Florida Statues....
...2015).
The return of service here doesn’t include the name of the person
served. Rather, the return of service indicates that the documents were
served to “Jane Doe as sister/co-tenant.” Failure to include the statutorily
required information invalidates a return of service. See §
48.21(2), Fla.
Stat.; see also Gonzalez v. Totalbank,
472 So. 2d 861, 863 (Fla. 3d DCA
1985) (explaining that failure to record the facts set forth in section
48.21,
Florida Statues, invalidates the service, unless it is amended); Vives v....
...because “[t]he return of service
does not state the name of the person on whom service was made”); Murphy
v. Cach, LLC,
230 So. 3d 599, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“Here, the amended
affidavit of service of process is facially deficient under section
48.21
because it does not contain the name of the person served. Providing a
physical description of ‘John Doe’ in lieu of providing the individual’s name
is insufficient compliance with section
48.21.”)....
...testified that the property in question
4
The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of valid service of process. Robles-
Martinez v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP,
88 So. 3d 177, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
“This burden requires the party to demonstrate that the return of service is,
under section
48.21, facially valid or regular on its face.” Koster, 160 So....
...required by subsection (1)
invalidates the service, but the return is amendable to state the facts . . . at
any time on application to the court from which the process issued. On
amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the
omitted facts . . . .” § 48.21(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...court’s jurisdiction retains the burden of proving valid service and must
prove valid service by other means. See Romeo,
144 So. 3d at 586, 587–
88; Bornstein,
39 So. 3d at 503; see also Vives v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
128 So. 3d 9, 15–16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
Section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2018), states that service is invalid if
the return of service fails to include the date and time process was
received, the date and time it was served, the manner of service, the name
of the person who was served, and the position of the person who was
served if they were served in a representative capacity. Section
48.21(2)
provides that a return of service can be amended to include the necessary
facts “at any time on application to the court from which process issued.”
§
48.21(2), Fla....
...“On amendment” of the return of service,
“service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted
facts.” Id.
The parties agree that the original return of service in this case was
defective on its face because it failed to state the manner and time of
service as required by section 48.21(1)....
...amended return of service was facially valid, without requiring the bank
to prove the facts omitted from the original return of service. We agree.
A statute that is clear and unambiguous must be given its plain and
obvious meaning. E.g., Koster,
160 So. 3d at 390. Section
48.21(2)
provides that a return of service can be amended to include omitted facts
“on application to the court from which process issued” and that, “[o]n
amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the
omitted facts.” §
48.21(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Id. at 389. The burden to demonstrate that the
return of service is facially valid is on the party who seeks to invoke the
court's jurisdiction. Id. And "[a] return of service that is [facially valid]
must include the statutory factors contained in section 48.21." Id.
Section 48.21(1), Florida Statutes (2021), provides that a return of
service shall note (1) the date and time that the pleading comes to hand
or is received by the process server, (2) the date and time that process is
served, (3) the manner of service, and (4) the name of the person served
and, if the person is served in a representative capacity, the position
occupied by the person.
Failure to include the statutorily required information invalidates
service unless the return is amended.3 See § 48.21(2) ("[T]he return is
amendable to state the facts ....
...on "Jane Doe as sister/co-tenant" failed to name the person served and
was therefore invalid); Murphy v. Cach, LLC,
230 So. 3d 599, 601 (Fla.
5th DCA 2017) (holding that a return of service which lists the person
served as "John Doe" is facially deficient under section
48.21 because it
does not contain the name of the person served)....
...claim that the residence where service was effectuated was not the
defendant's usual place of abode)." (footnotes omitted)).
Therefore, after review of the four corners of the return of service,
we conclude that it contained all the elements required by section
48.21(1)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
a law enforcement officer. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §
48.021 (outlining the
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
a law enforcement officer. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §
48.021 (outlining the
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10027, 2016 WL 3541007
...objections”).
“The return of service is the instrument a court relies on to determine
whether jurisdiction over an individual has been established.” Koster v.
Sullivan,
160 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 164
(2015). Section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2014), identifies “four facts that a
return of process shall note:”
(1) the date and time that the pleading comes to hand or is
received by the process server, (2) the date and time that
process...
...e witnesses must be lacking
in confusion as to the facts in issue.
Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co.,
548 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Here, the returns of service are regular on their face as they contain the
four facts required by section
48.21: (1) the process server received the
pleadings on March 28, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.; (2) process was served on
April 12, 2014 at 1:15 p.m.; (3) & (4) James Matthews was individually
served and Roberta Matthews was served by substituted service on James
Matthews, her spouse....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 3729907, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11608
...he cause of
action is not an adversary proceeding between the spouse and
the person to be served, if the spouse requests such service,
and if the spouse and person to be served are residing together
in the same dwelling.
Section
48.21, Florida Statutes (2013), governs returns of executions of
process. Section
48.21(1) provides that the process server “shall note on
a return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time when it
comes to hand, the date and time when it is served, the manner of service,
the name of the person on whom it was served.” (emphasis added). Section
48.21(2) states that “[a] failure to state the facts . . . required by subsection
(1) invalidates the service.”
Florida courts have relied upon both the return of execution of process
statute—section
48.21—and the general service of process statutes—
sections
48.031 and
48.081—in determining whether a return is regular
on its face. Compare Koster v. Sullivan,
103 So. 3d 882, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012) (“[T]he determination that a return is regular on its face, no matter
what type of service, is governed only by the language of section
48.21 and
does not require express reference to section
48.031(1)(a) or any other
statute that serves to define a specified manner of service.”), review
granted,
130 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2013), with Gonzalez v. Totalbank,
472 So.
2d 861, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (suggesting that in addition to deficiencies
in a return under section
48.21, the lack of a requirement listed in section
48.031 could make a return of service defective on its face and invalidate
service).
Here, the affidavits of service stated that the process server received the
alias summonses on September 10th, but they were not issued until
September 12th. Thus, the affidavits are defective on their face under
section
48.21 because they actually state that they “came to hand before
the summonses were even issued.” See Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l
Loan Acquisitions Co.,
969 So. 2d 467, 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding
that “the trial court was not permitted to presume that the service of
process was valid” under section
48.21 where “the return of service was
defective on its face because it actually stated that it came to hand before
the summonses were even issued”).
3
Further, the process server attested that...
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1978).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
special process server appointed by the sheriff. Section
48.021, F. S. (1976 Supp.). This section does not
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...’t specify where Sadlak was
served. To be regular on its face, the return of service must meet the requirements
of the relevant method-of-service statute – in this case, section
48.031 – and the
“Return of execution of process” statute (section
48.21). See Vives v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.,
128 So. 3d 9, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[T]he verified return of service
is not regular on its face because it fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in
sections
48.031(1)(a) and
48.21.”); Robles-Martinez v....
...formation in compliance with the
specific requirements of section
48.031(1)(a). . . . This determination was made by
simply reviewing the four corners of the return to see if it contained all of the
information required by the applicable statute: Section
48.21, Florida Statutes
* “We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash service of
process.” Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC v....
...name of the person on whom it was served and, if the person is served
in a representative capacity, the position occupied by the person. The
return-of-service form must be signed by the person who effects the
service of process.
Id. § 48.21(1).
The return of service, here, meets these requirements....
...t in section
48.031(1)(a) that
“[s]ervice of original process [be] made by delivering a copy of it to the person to
be served with a copy of the complaint.”
3
While sections
48.031(1)(a) and
48.21(1) do not require that the return of
service list the title of the case and describe what it is about, the return here did
those things too....
...Defendant Sandra Sadlak, et al,” and provided the case number. And the
return of service stated that Sadlak was served with the complaint, which spelled
out the allegations and the nature of the lawsuit.
Finally, even though sections
48.031(1)(a) and
48.21(1) do not require that
the return list the exact delivery location of the summons and complaint when they
are delivered in person, the return here provided the exact location....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1986).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
action), and see, ss.
48.011, and
48.021, F.S. Section
48.021 expressly provides that all process under that
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1989).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
required by statute to be served by the sheriff. Section
48.021(1), F.S., as amended by s. 1, Ch. 88-135, Laws
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1232, 2015 WL 403999
...on persons outside the United States may be required to conform to the provisions of
-4-
the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
Civil or Commercial Matters." Section 48.21(1) provides that the required return-of-
service form must include "the date and time when it comes to hand, the date and time
when it is served, the manner of service, the name of the person on whom it was served
and, if the person is served in a representative capacity, the position occupied by the
person." See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(e) ("The date and hour of service shall be
endorsed on the original process and all copies of it by the person making the service.").
Section 48.21(2) adds that although the return-of-service is amendable, the failure to
state the required facts invalidates the service....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Having carefully examined the record of the evidentiary
hearing conducted below, we find dispositive a twofold assertion of error: (1)
appellee failed to introduce any process demonstrating service upon Kassin;
and (2) the return for REESK was defective because it failed to include the
factors mandated under section 48.21(1), Florida Statutes (2023)....
...and applying the burden-shifting framework set forth in the seminal case of
Koster v. Sullivan,
160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015). Id. at 389 (“A return of service
2
that is [facially valid] must include the statutory factors contained in section
48.21[(1)].”). The omissions in this record are fatal to the validity of service.
See §
48.21(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 1990 WL 15392
...Appellant, Dave Russell, d/b/a Dave’s Pool Service, appeals the order denying his motion to quash the service of process upon him. He raises two issues: (1) Whether service of process upon himself was proper and effective where the complaint was not served upon him and where the process server failed to comply with section 48.21, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 regarding service of process, and (2) Whether the court abused its discretion by not imposing a fine upon the process server for his failure (twice) to follow the statutory requirements....
...Suit was filed on July 5, 1988. On July 25, 1988, the process server attempted to serve Russell. Server failed to note on the return of service whether service was individual or substituted and the name of the person upon whom service was attempted, as required by section 48.21, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...id he note upon the return the date the process came to his hand, the location where the service was allegedly made, whether the service was individual or substituted, or the name of the person upon whom service was attempted, in viola *1243 tion of section 48.21, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...The procedures providing for proper service are clear and explicit. Russell appeared to contest the service of process and did not waive his right to be properly served. It is fundamental that a copy of the initial pleading be delivered at the time of personal service of process. Even though section 48.21, Florida Statutes, permits amendment of the return of service for failure to include on the return the required information, there is no procedure by which failure to serve the initial complaint at the time of personal service can be corrected....
...We do not know its reasons for having refused to do so, and a fine may well have been warranted under the circumstances, but it was discretionary on the trial court’s part to impose a fine. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070. REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Section 48.21 states: Return of execution of process....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...1.540(b)(1).1
Wu’s process server attested that he personally served Alem with two
summonses at Right Move’s registered address of 1110 Brickell Avenue in
Miami, which is also the address of its registered agent. The record reflects
that the returns of service are facially regular and compliant with section
48.21, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...service on the former husband occurred. The amended statute removes the
requirement that out of state return of service forms include the “time,
manner, and place of service” and allows a trial court to “consider the return-
of-service form described in [section]
48.21, or any other competent
evidence in determining whether service has been properly made.” §
48.194(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18015, 2015 WL 7752675
...2015). As we recognized in
Davidian and the cases cited therein, a return of service is not subject to
exclusion on hearsay grounds. The circuit court properly relied on the
returns in this case, which were sworn and contained all the information
which section 48.21(1), Florida Statutes (2012), requires:
Each person who effects service of process shall note on a
return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time
when it comes to hand, the date and time when it is served,...
...The return-of-service
form must be signed by the person who effects the service of
process. However, a person employed by a sheriff who effects
the service of process may sign the return-of-service form
using an electronic signature certified by the sheriff.
§ 48.21(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...1959) (internal citation omitted).
5
“The party who seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden
of proving proper service. This burden requires the party to demonstrate that
the return of service is, under section 48.21, facially valid or regular on its
face.” Koster, 160 So....
...Nat’l Loan
Acquisitions Co.,
969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Gonzalez v.
Totalbank,
472 So. 2d 861, 864 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
To properly analyze this case, we must start with the governing statute
in effect at the time of service. In 2006, section
48.21, Florida Statutes,
provided,
Each person who effects service of process shall note on a
return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time when
it comes to hand, the date and time when it is served, the manne...
...On amendment, service is as effective as if the
return had originally stated the omitted facts. A failure to state all
the facts in the return shall subject the person effecting service
to a fine not exceeding $10, in the court’s discretion.
§ 48.21, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19231
a matter of procedure. To the extent that Section
48.021(2),3 Florida Statutes (1981), may conflict
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The verified return of service is the whole ball of
wax before us. After all, "[t]he return of service is the instrument a court
relies on to determine whether jurisdiction over an individual has been
established." Koster v. Sullivan,
160 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 2015).
Section
48.21(1) defines valid return of service:
Each person who effects service of process shall note on
a return-of-service form attached thereto the date and time
when it comes to hand, the date and time when it is served,...
...describing service. And, because section
48.102 was adopted as part of
the same legislative enactment that overhauled Chapter 48, we must
interpret "manner of service" as used in section
48.102 to mean the same
thing that "manner of service" means in section
48.21....
...s "substitute service."
IV. Owl Failed to Carry its Burden
"The party who seeks to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving proper service. This burden requires the party to
demonstrate that the return of service is, under section 48.21, facially
valid or regular on its face." Koster, 160 So....
