Gilbert v. Storey
Florida District Court of Appeal
920 So. 2d 1173 (2006)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Jacqueline Storey (defendant), in her capacity as the personal-representative for the estate of Elisha Anderson, filed a quiet-title action against Hawanda Gilbert (plaintiff) regarding property located in Miami, Florida. Storey attempted to effect service-of-process on Hawanda via substituted-service on Hawanda’s mother-in-law, Rosa Gilbert, at Rosa’s residence. When the process server attempted to serve Rosa, Rosa refused service, stating that Hawanda did not live with Rosa. After the failed substituted-service, Storey served Hawanda by publication, which was permitted for quiet-title actions in Florida; the published service notice stated that Hawanda was required to file a responsive pleading by October 28, 2004. Storey then made another attempt to serve Hawanda via substituted-service on Rosa; Rosa again refused service, reiterating that Hawanda did not live with Rosa. On October 14, 2004, (1) Storey moved for a default-judgment, arguing that Hawanda had failed to timely respond to Storey’s summons; (2) the trial court entered a default-judgment against Hawanda; and (3) Hawanda served Storey with a motion-to-dismiss, which was then filed with the court on October 15. On October 26, Hawanda filed a motion-to-vacate the October 14 default-judgment, arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over her (1) because Storey’s attempt to serve Hawanda via substituted-service on Rosa was invalid due to the fact that Hawanda did not reside with Rosa; and (2) because the attempted substituted-service was invalid, Hawanda never received service-of-process. At an evidentiary hearing, Rosa submitted unchallenged testimony that Hawanda did not reside with Rosa at the time of either substituted-service attempt. Regardless, the trial court refused to vacate the default-judgment, holding that Hawanda’s motion-to-dismiss was untimely. Hawanda appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cope, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.


