Seymour v. Panchita Investment, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
28 So. 3d 194 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Katie Seymour’s (plaintiff) minor daughter was injured in an apartment owned and maintained by Panchita Investment, Inc. (Panchita) (defendant). Seymour filed a personal-injury lawsuit against Panchita on her daughter’s behalf. The summons issued in Seymour’s action identified Jorge Ramos as the defendant. Ramos was Panchita’s registered agent; however, the summons identified Ramos as the defendant in his individual capacity, not in his capacity as Panchita’s agent. However, both the caption and the allegations listed in the summons and complaint identified Panchita as the defendant. The process server’s return-of-service, also called an affidavit-of-service, stated that the summons and complaint were served on Ramos in his individual capacity. Panchita did not appear in, or respond to, Seymour’s action. The trial court entered a default judgment against Panchita. Panchita then moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that the default judgment was void because service-of-process on Ramos in his individual capacity did not constitute valid service on Panchita and did not provide Panchita with actual notice of Seymour’s lawsuit. The trial court granted Panchita’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Seymour appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Salter, 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.
