James Matthews and Roberta Matthews v. U.S. Bank, National Association, etc., 197 So. 3d 1140

U.S. Bank sued James and Roberta Matthews to foreclose a mortgage; process server served James in New Jersey on April 12, 2014 and left substituted service for Roberta with James.
The returns/affidavits of service stated time/date, manner of service, and names; they were notarized in New Jersey.
The Matthews filed a verified motion to quash service alleging (1) unauthorized server, (2) server failed to advise of contents, (3) returns did not comply with Florida law, and (4) missing information (server ID) on summons.
At the evidentiary hearing, James testified the server only handed papers and said "have a good day"; he admitted his sworn motion contained errors (wrong state, reference to an unrelated name) and said he likely had not read it before signing.
The trial court found the returns were regular on their face, shifted the burden to the Matthews to overcome the presumption of valid service by clear and convincing evidence, and denied the motion to quash.
The Fourth District affirmed, holding the returns complied with Fla. Stat. § 48.21 and § 48.194 (out-of-state service), the affidavits were sworn before a notary, initials/time on the summons were adequate, and any failure to advise of contents did not invalidate personal service or was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Matthews)	Defendant's Argument (U.S. Bank)	Held
Validity of affidavit/return of service	Affidavits titled "Affidavit of Service" were not sworn or do not satisfy oath requirements	Affidavits were signed and notarized in NJ and satisfy statutory affidavit requirement for out-of-state service	Return/affidavit was sworn before a notary and valid under §48.194; claim frivolous
Sufficiency of notations on summons (initials/ID/time)	Server's initials illegible and no identification number on summons renders service defective	Notations show server's initials and time/date; no NJ requirement for server ID shown	Notations were adequate; lack of an ID number not fatal given out-of-state service and no proof NJ required one
Failure to inform of contents	Server did not inform James of the papers' contents when serving him; substituted service on Roberta therefore invalid	Statutory notice-of-contents requirement applies to substituted service; return states contents were communicated; personal service not subject to same requirement	Trial court did not credit James’s testimony; requirement interpreted narrowly; failure not proven by clear and convincing evidence
Burden shifting after facially regular return	Court improperly shifted burden to Matthews	When return is regular on its face, presumption of valid service applies and challengers must rebut by clear and convincing evidence	Burden shift proper because returns were facially regular per Koster and related authorities

Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015) (return of service controls whether court has jurisdiction; facially regular return creates presumption of valid service)
Davidian v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 178 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (rejecting hearsay objection to returns and clarifying content-notification rule for personal service)
Vidal v. SunTrust Bank, 41 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (strict compliance required for statutory service notations; defects may invalidate service)
Placide v. State, 189 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (distinguishing unsworn statements lacking penalty-of-perjury language from proper affidavits)
Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001) (service statutes strictly construed to ensure notice and opportunity to defend)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise parties of action)
Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (standard for clear and convincing evidence to rebut service presumption)