Aboudraah v. Tartus Group, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
795 So. 2d 79 (2000)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Carlos Malagon (defendant) gave the Tartus Group, Inc. (Tartus) $200,000 in exchange for a promissory note. Charlie Aboudraah and Micheline Chahda (plaintiffs) were directors of Tartus, and Chahda was Tartus’s registered agent. As a registered agent, Chahda was authorized to accept service-of-process on Tartus’s behalf. Tartus was subsequently administratively dissolved. Malagon then sued Tartus, Aboudraah, and Chahda to enforce the promissory note. The process server served (1) Chahda personally and in her capacity as Tartus’s registered agent; and (2) Aboudraah via substituted service on Chahda, his ex-wife with whom he still resided. In Florida, service on a named defendant could be effectuated via substituted service on a resident of the same household over the age of 15. In the affidavit-of-service, the process server affirmed that he explained the contents of the summons to Chahda, including that each defendant was required to respond to Malagon’s complaint within 20 days to avoid default. No responsive pleadings were filed, and the trial court ultimately entered a final default-judgment for damages. Aboudraah and Chahda moved to vacate the final default-judgment, arguing that (1) substituted service on Chahda did not constitute proper service-of-process on Aboudraah; (2) Aboudraah was unable to timely respond because Chahda did not inform Aboudraah about the summons; and (3) Chahda did not understand her legal obligations because she lacked English mastery. The trial court denied Chahda and Aboudraah’s motion to vacate. Chahda and Aboudraah appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cobb, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.