Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The lawsuit here was filed in Orange County. Service was undertaken in Palm Beach County by a certified process server certified by the chief judge for Palm Beach County. Sections 48.25-48.31, are known as the "Florida Certified Process Servers Act." Section 48.27, Florida Statutes, entitled "Certified process servers" provides: (1) The chief judge of each judicial circuit may establish an approved list of natural persons designated as certified process servers....

...Since it is well settled that: (1) all process of all courts run throughout the state, and (2) certified process servers are authorized by law to serve process, then logically a process server certified in one county would be authorized to serve process originating from another judicial circuit unless section 48.27, Florida Statutes restricts such authority. The defendant asserts that the language of subsection 48.27(2) restricts a certified process server to service of civil process on a person found within the judicial circuit where the lawsuit was filed. The plaintiff counters that under the legislative scheme, a certified process server may serve process on any person found in the circuit where the process server is certified. Section 48.27 is not a model of clarity and has been described by Trawick as "ridiculous," "another of the ill conceived and poorly written revisions by the Florida Sheriff's Association." Trawick, Florida Practice & Procedure, § 8.4 n. 15. The clear implication of Trawick's remark is that the Florida Certified Process Servers Act was enacted by the legislature at the request of the state's sheriffs to relieve some of the burdens associated with service of civil process. Under section 48.27(1), the chief judge of each circuit may establish a list of persons who meet the requirements for certification as a process server as set out in section 48.29. [2] According to section 48.27(2), such a certified process server is authorized: to serve initial non-enforceable civil process [3] on a person found within the circuit when a civil action has been filed against *315 such person in the circuit court or in the county court in the circuit....

...One reason for this restriction may be, as the defendant claims, that it permits easy verification of service of process by the clerk or judge of the circuit in which the action is pending by reference to the chief judge's approved list of certified process servers. The plaintiff argues that the narrow construction of section 48.27 could not have been intended but fails to offer a cogent explanation of the underlined language....

...The plaintiff alternatively asserts that verification could be achieved by a letter or telephone call to the clerk of the judicial circuit where service was effectuated. However, such an awkward and cumbersome procedure was likely not intended by the legislature. The plaintiff further argues that to narrowly construe section 48.27(2) would place an undue burden on the sheriff's departments of each judicial circuit....

...The Deckers contend that the default judgment was void as a matter of law because the service of process on them was defective and insufficient to subject them to the jurisdiction of the trial court that entered the judgment. They argue that the service of process was void under sections 48.27(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1996), because the judgment creditor's complaint was filed in one judicial circuit and served in another judicial circuit where the process server was unqualified to act. The summons was issued in Orange County, part of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, and served in Lake County, part of the *1230 Fifth Judicial Circuit. The process server was certified pursuant to Florida Statutes section 48.27(2) to effect service in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and under the 1996 version of this statute a certified process server was authorized to effect service only when the action was filed and the process was served within the same circuit, see, e.g., Abbate v....

...e County pursuant to Florida Statutes section 48.021(3). See, e.g., Cheshire v. Birenbaum, 688 So.2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Although the service upon the Deckers was defective because the process server was not qualified under the former version of section 48.27 or section 48.021(3), Florida Statute (1996), it was not void....

...4th DCA 1969). The Deckers failed to timely raise the issue of defective service of process and the trial court correctly denied their motion to vacate and set aside the final judgment. We affirm. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 48.27(2), Fla....

...There, the Deckers had contended that, because the service of process on them was defective, the default judgment was void as a matter of law. The Fifth District disagreed: Although the service upon the Deckers was defective because the process server was not qualified under the former version of section 48.27 or section 48.021(3), Florida Statute[s] (1996), it was not void....

...284 , F.S., would provide insurance coverage for general liability and federal civil rights actions and court-awarded attorney's fees in actions brought against a chief judge as described herein. Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General (gh) 1 Section 48.27 (1), F.S., as created by s. 3, Ch. 88-135, Laws of Florida. 2 Section 48.27 (2), Ch. 88-135, supra. And see, AGO 89-1, which defines "initial nonenforceable civil process" as that initial civil process which is not required by statute to be served by the sheriff. 3 Section 48.29 (1), as created by s. 4, Ch. 88-135, supra. 4 Section 48.27 (2), as created by s....

...meet certain requirements for certification and who, upon certification, shall be authorized to serve initial nonenforceable civil process. 2 See, s. 48.29 , F.S., which sets forth the requirements and process for certification of process servers. 3 Section 48.27 (2), F.S., as created by s....

where the action originated, in violation of section 48.27(2), Florida Statutes. Regarding the first point