Lance Koster v. Carol Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385

Sullivan served Koster by leaving summons and complaint at his residence with his sister‑in‑law, Pat Hassett, who was present; Koster did not initially respond and a default and final default judgment were entered.
Koster moved to set aside the default judgment and to quash service, arguing service and the return were defective for failing to state the specific substitute‑service elements in section 48.031(1)(a).
The trial court found the return satisfied section 48.21’s facial requirements, creating a presumption of valid service; Koster failed to rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
The Second District affirmed, holding section 48.21 governs facial regularity of a return and does not require listing the detailed factors of substitute service from section 48.031(1)(a); factual defects can still be used to rebut the presumption.
The Supreme Court of Florida accepted review on a certified question of great public importance: whether a facially valid return must expressly list the statutory elements defining the indicated "manner of service."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a return of service must expressly state the statutory factors that define the stated "manner of service" (e.g., substitute service elements in §48.031(1)(a)) to be facially valid under §48.21	Koster: §48.21’s requirement to state the "manner of service" necessarily requires listing the specific substitute‑service elements (abode, age ≥15, informed of contents) from §48.031(1)(a)	Sullivan: §48.21 lists the four required return items and does not incorporate §48.031; stating the manner (e.g., "substitute") and the person served satisfies §48.21; factual omissions can be litigated to rebut presumption	Court: No. A return need only satisfy the explicit items in §48.21 to be facially valid; §48.21 does not require expressly listing §48.031(1)(a) factors (presumption of valid service remains, subject to rebuttal)

Klosenski v. Flaherty, 116 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1959) (officer’s return is evidence for determining whether court acquired jurisdiction)
Rorick v. Stilwell, 133 So. 609 (Fla. 1931) (a return regular on its face permits court to assume jurisdiction for default judgment)
Gibbens v. Pickett, 12 So. 17 (Fla. 1893) (a return defective on its face cannot be relied on to show jurisdiction)
Standley v. Arnow, 13 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1869) (statutory mode of acquiring jurisdiction must be strictly pursued)
Re‑Emp’t Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (return is defective on its face if it fails to include statutorily required items)