Schupak v. Sutton Hill Associates
Florida District Court of Appeal
710 So. 2d 707 (1998)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Sutton Hill Associates (Sutton) (defendant) commenced an action in Florida against Donald Schupak (plaintiff), a New York resident, in Schupak’s capacity as the last director of Jesson, Inc., a dissolved corporation. Sutton engaged a process-server to serve Schupak at his New York City apartment. When the process-server arrived at Schupak’s apartment, he asked the doorman to call up to Schupak’s apartment. Schupak was not at home; the only person in the apartment at the time of the attempted service was Schupak’s maid, who refused to grant the process-server entry to Schupak’s apartment. The maid did not reside in Schupak’s apartment. The process-server then left the summons and complaint with the doorman in an attempt at substituted-service. Schupak never received the summons and complaint. Ultimately, after Schupak failed to file a responsive pleading, the trial court entered a default-judgment in Sutton’s favor. Schupak filed a motion to vacate the default-judgment and quash service-of-process, arguing that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him because (1) he never received service-of-process; and (2) the attempted substituted-service was invalid because Schupak’s doorman was not qualified to receive substituted-service on Schupak’s behalf. The trial court denied Schupak’s motion. Schupak appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Owen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
