Howell v. Falls

Full title: KENT HOWELL, APPELLANT, v. KATHLEEN A. FALLS, APPELLEE

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 7, 1987

513 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 87-1447.

October 7, 1987.

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Estella M. Moriarty, Judge.

John M. Camillo, of Vernis Bowling, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Spector, of Robert L. Spector, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LETTS, J., concurs.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

GLICKSTON, J., concurring specially.

The trial court denied appellant's motion to quash constructive service of process. We are affirming. The affidavit of compliance executed by appellee's trial counsel and considered by the trial court recited the following:

1. That on or about August 23, 1985, the Plaintiff, KATHLEEN FALLS, was involved in an automobile accident with a car driven by Defendant, KENT HOWELL.

2. That after diligent search and inquiry, the undersigned counsel has been unable to serve the Defendant, KENT HOWELL.

3. That the undersigned counsel has attempted to serve defendant, KENT HOWELL, at his address indicated as his residence in the accident investigation report attached hereto as exhibit 1. However, no service has been obtained upon the aforementioned Defendant at this address.

4. That the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff has searched the telephone directories and public records of Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties in an effort to obtain the address of Defendant, KENT HOWELL. However, this has been to no avail.

5. That the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the address of said Defendant through the use of a professional tracing service, but to no avail.

In my opinion the foregoing is substantially different from the cursory efforts described in Barriat v. Salahud-Din, 389 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Not only was service attempted at the address provided by appellant, but telephone directories and public records of three counties were searched, and a professional tracing service engaged, to no avail. Such facts show there was diligent search and inquiry, and gave reason to believe appellant either had left the state or was concealing his whereabouts.

ANSTEAD, Judge, dissenting.

At issue is the sufficiency of proof of appellee's efforts to locate the appellant's address before giving up and employing constructive service of process. In the trial court the appellee presented only a brief affidavit reciting appellee's inability to serve appellant at the address listed in an accident report and the failure of a professional tracing service to locate the appellant. I find these statements conclusory in nature and insufficient to demonstrate substantial good faith efforts to locate appellant. In contrast with these conclusory statements, the appellee recites in her brief a number of specific efforts made to locate appellant that would appear adequate to justify constructive service. Unfortunately, evidence of these efforts was not presented to the trial court and is not in the record.