By responding to complaint and indicating service has not been proper is that a drawback?
Defendant has been a Florida homeowner for over a decade. Her name would therefore be discoverable in the eh in the publ the be in thedl
Defendant's residential address has been found in the public record without going through FL property records. However in Florida, if one is a homeowner the owner's address is the residential address of the homeowner, then isn't this address discoverable in the Public record?
If Defendant responds to complaint... can one of the Affirmative Defenses
If Defendant responds to complaint... can one of the Affirmative Defenses be improper service?
If Defendant responds to complaint... and doesn't set a hearing for MTD... then Plaintiff would have to set hearing, correct? And if there was hearing and improper service is ruled to have occurred then isn't Plaintiff required to re-file a new case. Or can Plaintiff simply serve process on the same case, and proceed with the same case?
If defendant does not respond at all (from the mailbox service), then what is likely to occurr? Plaintiff could file for a default judgement, correct? Then where does defendant stand at that point in time?
I have seen the rule that says mailbox service is acceptable as substitute service if defendants address cannot be found in public record... but this seems very odd in Defendant's case since she is, and has been a homeowner with her husband co-owners of a homestead property and the address of the owners (the couple) is their residential address..... so therefore aren't they "discoverable in the public record" ? ie. so that pocess server/plaintiff cannot say that "service by mailbox was proper"
OK... thank you for your patience, I think I am understanding but want to make sure....
just a minute didn't finish....
The process server handed summons and complaint to the owner/manager of the retail mailbox store and told him to place process in Defendant’s private mail box. Defendant has since obtained a sworn affidavit from the store owner testifying that that is what happened.
Defendant found summons/complaint in her mailbox. It is dated and appears to have initials (of process server?) next to date. There is a handwritten case number XXXXX the summons. And when you look in th online county court records the docket is saying that process server served summons. Can’t see any more than that information as it is blocked from public online viewing.
No attempt was ever made to serve Defendant individually.
So therefore due to the above, you are saying the Summons can be completely ignored and that no response from Defendant is legally necessary. Is that correct?
So then what is likely to happen to the case when it comes up for hearing? Won’t Plaintiff just file for Default judgment? And if Plaintiff does so, how will defendant be notified of whatever transpires?
MTC -- motion to compel? or Motion to Quash?
So you are saying there Does have to be an answer or MTD ...can't just ignore, correct?
due to having to answer (even the invalid service).... That is why I was asking if the answer could list as an Aff. def the invalid service, along with other Aff deff without motioning for a hearing ....
is that possible
Plaintiff has alleged breach of contract, but failed to attach copy of contract or any contract terms, which appears to violate the FCP rule that says contracts must be attached to complaint... otherwise there failure to state a claim. and if so, then should the answer be a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to state a claim?
If Defendant still prefers to respond in this case with MTQ service then .... If hearing is set for MTQ and service is ruled invalid then does Plaintiff have legal right to serve defendant at that point i.e.there in the Courthouse ... or would the case have to be re-filed and sent out for service once new case is filed? If service is allowed to be effected on Defendant at the MTQ hearing, then does Defendant again have 20 days in which to respond? Defendant currently has affidavit from store owner... the title at top of Affidiavit says it is Affidavit in Support of Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses. -- If Defendant is going to move for Motion to Quash is that Affidavit "title" a problem in attaching the Affidavit to a Motion to Quash Service? Or is the Affidavit testimony acceptable regardless of the title at the top?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).