Carlini v. State Department of Legal Affairs
Florida District Court of Appeal
521 So. 2d 254 (1988)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
The Florida Department of Legal Affairs (department) (plaintiff) filed a real-property forfeiture action against Janet Carlini (defendant). The department attempted to serve Janet at the property subject to the forfeiture action; however, because Janet was not present at the time of service, the department served Janet’s brother-in-law, Peter Carlini, instead. Janet filed a motion-to-quash service-of-process, arguing that the substituted-service on Peter was defective service-of-process because (1) neither Peter nor Janet resided at the property subject to forfeiture; and (2) substituted-service could only be validly effectuated at Janet’s residence on a person with whom Janet cohabitated. Janet’s motion-to-quash service-of-process included corroborating evidence but did not state how the department could cure the defective service. The trial court denied Janet’s motion-to-quash service-of-process, holding that (1) motions-to-quash service-of-process based on defective service were required to state how the defective service could be cured; and (2) Janet’s motion-to-quash failed because it did not include the required cure statement. Janet appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
