From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gondal v. Martinez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 20, 1992
606 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

In Gondal, the trial court's personal jurisdiction over defendant was the issue before this court; the language concerning Rule 1.070(j) was clearly dicta.

Summary of this case from Natl. Powerboat Ass'n, Inc v. Calabro

Opinion

No. 92-1417.

October 20, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Phillip Bloom, J.

Robert G. Corirossi, Miami, and Amir Fleischer, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Garel and Jacobs and Jeffrey A. Jacobs, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.


Where a complaint fails, as here, to allege that the defendant is a nonresident of the State, or a resident of Florida who subsequently became a nonresident, or a resident of Florida concealing his where-abouts, service on the secretary of state is ineffective to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. Journell v. Vitanzo, 472 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Filing of an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry over seven hundred days after the complaint was filed, and while a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to rule 1.070(j), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, was pending, did not preclude the dismissal as the affidavit did not cure the complaint defect, nor did it constitute good grounds to deny the rule 1.070(j) motion. See Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (fact that process was served prior to filing of defendant's rule 1.070(j) motion to dismiss did not give court discretion to deny motion).


(j) Summons-Time Limit. If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after filing of the initial pleading and the party on whose behalf service is required does not show good cause why service was not made within that time, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice or that defendant dropped as a party on the court's own initiative after notice or on motion.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Gondal v. Martinez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 20, 1992
606 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

In Gondal, the trial court's personal jurisdiction over defendant was the issue before this court; the language concerning Rule 1.070(j) was clearly dicta.

Summary of this case from Natl. Powerboat Ass'n, Inc v. Calabro

In Gondal v. Martinez, 606 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the court did not discuss the jurisdictional issue, but again, the service of process itself was defective and was insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant.

Summary of this case from Comisky v. Rosen Management Service
Case details for

Gondal v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THAIR GONDAL, APPELLANT, v. MARIA MARTINEZ AND MIGUEL MARTINEZ, APPELLEES

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 20, 1992

Citations

606 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Natl. Powerboat Ass'n, Inc v. Calabro

An order denying a motion to dismiss based on that rule is a non-final, nonappealable order. Hicks v. City of…

Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere

Moreover, the court noted that the plaintiff had admitted noncompliance with the statutory requirement of…