Every now and then a query pops up relating to defective service. It is axiomatic that a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant absent valid service of summons, citation or other official process. But it is also true that the requisites of valid service are usually relatively easy for a plaintiff to prove.
Nevertheless, from time to time plaintiffs engage in so-called sewer service where a process server alleges that service has been completed when this is not actually true.
There was a new decision out of Florida's Second District Court of Appeals last week, wherein the appellate court reversed a foreclosure due to defective service. I thought this to be an interesting decision, because the defendant seems to have made out its case as to defective service in a rather compelling way. This contrasts with the many instances where a defendant fails miserably to show that service wasn't properly completed in the face of an affidavit of service alleging that service was completed.
The case is:
Baker v. Stearns Bank, N.A., Case No. 2D11-2986 (Fla. App. 2nd Dist. 2012)
Discussion and comments are solicited, encouraged and appreciated!