Southeastern Termite and Pest v. Ones
Florida District Court of Appeal
792 So. 2d 1266 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Aser Ones (defendant) commenced an action against Southeastern Termite & Pest (Southeastern) (plaintiff). Celso Saenz was Southeastern’s president. Ones’s process-server submitted an affidavit-of-service stating that he had personally served Southeastern, through Saenz, with Ones’s summons and complaint on March 29, 2000, at Saenz’s home located at 208 Rich Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. Because Southeastern did not timely respond to Ones’s summons, the trial court entered a default-judgment against Southeastern. Approximately six months later, Southeastern filed a motion to vacate the default-judgment. Southeastern submitted an affidavit stating that (1) the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over Southeastern because Southeastern had never been served with process; and (2) Southeastern had never been served because on March 29, 2000, the date of the purported service-of-process on Saenz at 208 Rich Drive, Saenz was residing at 1853 Bell Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, where he had moved approximately five weeks earlier. The trial court denied Southeastern’s motion to vacate without conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve the discrepancies between Southeastern’s allegations and the process server’s affidavit-of-service. Southeastern appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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.
