TID Services, Inc. v. Dass
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17638
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- TID Services, Inc. appeals a circuit court order denying its motion to vacate a default final judgment in favor of Dass for claims related to grove property.
- Dass served process by leaving it with the owner of a UPS store at TID's private mailbox address West Colonial Drive; TID's public filings listed that private mailbox as the address for officers, directors, and registered agent since 2005, with Strihal Loop appearing as the earlier address.
- Dass filed an eight-count complaint; a clerk's default was entered for TID’s failure to respond, and a final judgment and sale of the grove property were entered against TID in December 2008, with notices sent to the West Colonial Drive address.
- TID moved to vacate in January 2009, arguing improper service because a private mailbox was used; hearings revealed the private mailbox existed, but the government failed to prove that the private mailbox was the only public-record address.
- The court found service valid under certain requirements but reversed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that the only discoverable public-record address was the private mailbox, remanding to vacate the final judgment and clerk’s default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service at a private mailbox complied with 48.031(6) and 48.081(3). | Dass argues the private mailbox method is authorized only if conditions are met. | TID contends the service was invalid because a public-record Strihal Loop address existed and was discoverable. | Service valid only if the only discoverable address was the private mailbox; here not shown. |
| Whether the only address discoverable through public records for TID was a private mailbox. | Dass needed to show the private mailbox was the sole public-record address. | TID argues there were other public-record addresses (Strihal Loop) making service at the mailbox improper. | Plaintiff failed to prove the exclusive discoverable address was the private mailbox; remand required. |
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying the motion to vacate the final judgment. | Dass asserts service was proper and the default/judgment should stand. | TID asserts lack of proper service invalidates the default and final judgment. | Reversed; the circuit court erred by not vacating the final judgment and clerk's default. |
Key Cases Cited
- Radiation, Inc. v. Magnetic Sys. Corp., 173 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (designating registered office; physical address required for service)
- Beckley v. Best Restorations, Inc., 13 So.3d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (private mailbox service requires strict compliance)
- Clauro Enters., Inc. v. Aragon Galiano Holdings, LLC, 16 So.3d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (outlines conditions for service at a private mailbox)