Opinion
No. 3D20-0021
07-01-2020
The Law Offices of Michael D. Stewart, and Michael D. Stewart, for appellant. Zumpano Castro, LLC, and Daniel E. Zumpano and Antonio C. Castro, for appellee.
The Law Offices of Michael D. Stewart, and Michael D. Stewart, for appellant.
Zumpano Castro, LLC, and Daniel E. Zumpano and Antonio C. Castro, for appellee.
Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 48.081(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) ("If the address provided for the ... officer ... is a ... private mailbox, service on the corporation may be made by serving the ... officer ... in accordance with s. 48.031."); see also § 48.031(6), Fla. Stat. (2004) ("If the only address for a person to be served, which is discoverable through public records, is a private mailbox, substitute service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person in charge of the private mailbox, but only if the process server determines that the person to be served maintains a mailbox at that location."); Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Wright, 813 So. 2d 989, 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (concluding that a defect in the name on the summons did not invalidate substitute service of process where there was no confusion as to who was being served).