Torres v. Arnco Construction, Inc.

867 So. 2d 583 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Torres v. Arnco Construction, Inc.

Florida District Court of Appeal
867 So. 2d 583 (2004)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Arnco Construction, Inc. (Arnco) (defendant) entered into a construction contract in Florida with Javier Torres (plaintiff), a New York resident. Subsequently, Arnco filed a breach-of-contract action against Javier. Arnco’s New York process-server made multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve process on Javier at his New York City apartment. In an affidavit-of-service, the New York process-server stated that Javier’s neighbors verified Javier lived in that apartment but that Javier travelled frequently and spent significant time in Florida with his mother, Gregoria Torres. After several unsuccessful service attempts in New York, Arnco engaged a Florida process-server to effect service-of-process on Javier via substituted-service on Gregoria. Upon being served, Gregoria assured the Florida process-server that Javier would be home soon and that she would ensure Javier got the papers. After several months with no response from Javier, the trial court issued a default-judgment against Javier. After learning about the default-judgment from Gregoria’s attorney, Javier moved to vacate the default-judgment, arguing that the Florida court did not have jurisdiction over him because (1) he never received service-of-process; and (2) the substituted-service effected on Gregoria in Florida was invalid because Gregoria’s Florida home was not Javier’s usual place of abode. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion-to-vacate; however, the hearing was not an evidentiary hearing because the court did not permit the introduction of live testimony or additional evidence. The trial court denied Javier’s motion to vacate. Javier appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Monaco, J.)

Dissent (Griffin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership