Robles-Martinez v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12980
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Diaz, Reus & Targ sued its client and affiliates for unpaid fees; substituted service was attempted on Maria Uribe at the defendants' presumed address.
- Appellants moved to quash service, claiming they did not live at the addressed location in May 2009; Uribe filed an affidavit denying residence there.
- An evidentiary hearing was held after an initial ruling; the process server testified that Uribe housed the defendants and accepted service on their behalf.
- Uribe testified she and the defendants lived at the address; the defendants testified they had not resided there for eight months prior to service.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, holding that the defendants failed to prove improper service by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appeal, the majority affirmed, applying a burden-shifting framework and presuming valid service from a facially regular return; the dissent urged strict compliance and remand for proper factual findings on the usual place of abode.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether facial regularity creates a presumption of valid service | Lindo Hoyos argues the return is facially regular and valid. | Robles-Martinez challenge shifts burden due to prima facie defect; must prove lack of usual abode. | Presumption of valid service; burden shifts to defendants to show invalidity. |
| Whether 'usual place of abode' differs from 'residence' and controls service | Plaintiff contends the court appropriately used usual place of abode as the legal standard. | Defendants contend the court focused on residence rather than actual usual place of abode. | Strictly construed; usual place of abode governs substituted service. |
| Whether there was competent substantial evidence to support that the address was the defendants' usual place of abode | Burden to prove valid service by clear and convincing evidence; returns regular on their face. | Affidavits and testimony showed they did not reside there; evidence supports invalid service. | There was competent substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the address was their usual place of abode at service. |
| Did the trial court apply the correct legal standard in denying the motion to quash | Court properly evaluated procedural standards and burden shifting. | Court failed to apply the usual-place-of-abode standard and relied on improper focus on residence. | Court did not apply the correct legal standard; affirmed but dissent would remand for proper findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 472 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (regular-on-face return with presumption of validity; burden shifting)
- Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So.2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (regular-on-face return creates presumption of validity)
- Busman v. State, 905 So.2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (burden shifts when prima facie defect shown)
- Johnston v. Halliday, 516 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (return of service must meet statutory specifics; general statements insufficient)
- Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Gonzalez, 951 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (affirmed quash where defendants not living at address for years)
- Thompson v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 867 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (prima facie showing not served at usual abode; strict interpretation)
- Stern v. Gad, 505 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (usual place of abode distinct from residence)
- Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 472 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (see above; (duplicate entry kept distinct for citation consistency))