The service of process statute does not permit constructive service of process in paternity cases, and there is no express provision within chapter 409 to authorize constructive service or to ensure that a legal father's interests are appropriately protected. See § 409.257, Fla. Stat. (2000) (requiring personal service); see also § 49.011, Fla. Stat. (2000) (listing the actions and proceedings in which service of process by publication may be made — a list that does not include paternity actions); see also T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (holding that constructive service of process is not permitted by statute). Whether the statutes should be modified to address this dilemma is a policy decision for the Legislature to decide.

We agree with the trial court that the purpose of the paternity statute, chapter 742, is to afford a basis on which a court may order child support from a man adjudicated to be the father of the illegitimate child. T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The paternity statute was enacted in abrogation of the common law in order to convert the father's moral obligation to provide child support to a legal obligation and in order to relieve the public of the need to provide support for the child.

To the extent that the City and the Van Dykes argue, and the trial court implied, that the default judgment could be declared void based on lack of personal jurisdiction over Toll Bridge Company, actions that are in rem or quasi in rem, which would include Marlowe's quiet title action against Toll Bridge Company, do not require the establishment of personal jurisdiction over a defendant landowner. See Hinton v. Gold, 813 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820, 830 (Fla. 1926); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Wolf v. Indus. Guar. Bancorp., 281 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. ex rel Bd. of Trs. of the Int. Imp. Trust Fund, 78 So.3d 31, 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). However, a trial court obtains jurisdiction in such actions "only after the plaintiff wishing to bring suit complies with the requirements of due process," which requires "that the defendant be given fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a judgment is rendered."

To the extent that the City and the Van Dykes argue, and the trial court implied, that the default judgment could be declared void based on lack of personal jurisdiction over Toll Bridge Company, actions that are in rem or quasi in rem, which would include Marlowe's quiet title action against Toll Bridge Company, do not require the establishment of personal jurisdiction over a defendant landowner. See Hinton v. Gold, 813 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820, 830 (Fla. 1926); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Wolf v. Indus. Guar. Bancorp., 281 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. ex rel Bd. of Trs. of the Int. Imp. Trust Fund, 78 So.3d 31, 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). However, a trial court obtains jurisdiction in such actions "only after the plaintiff wishing to bring suit complies with the requirements of due process," which requires "that the defendant be given fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a judgment is rendered."

[3] Although personal jurisdiction is not required for actions quasi in rem, such as an action to quiet title, a court obtains jurisdiction quasi in rem only after the plaintiff wishing to bring suit complies with the requirements of due process. See McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, 830 (1926); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Wolf v.Industrial Guaranty Bancorp., 281 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). [4] Due process demands that the defendant be given fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a judgment is rendered.

When there is a lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, the judgment is absolutely null and void on its face. See T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Here, the record reflects that appellees' three attempts at service failed to perfect substituted service on appellant.

A paternity action is an action in personam and, absent a valid long-arm statute, a judgment in personam against a nonresident who does not enter a voluntary general appearance or otherwise waive personal service can only be predicated upon jurisdiction over the person acquired by personal service of process within the state of Florida. T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); see also, Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). If Florida courts are to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over nonresidents in connection with paternity and child support claims, such jurisdiction can only be based upon section 48.193(1)(b) or section 48.193(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1983).

O'Hara v. O'Hara, 327 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see Bell v. Bell, 112 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). A partition judgment is unquestionably in rem. Miller v. Griffen, 99 Fla. 976, 128 So. 416, 419 (1930); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

However, if a judgment or decree is void or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application, the one year limitation does not apply. This court and other Florida courts, both before and after the adoption of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), have stated that a void judgment may be attacked "at any time" because a void judgment creates no binding obligation upon the parties, is legally ineffective, and is a nullity. See Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2 (1939); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926); Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Florida Power Light Co. v. Canal Authority, 423 So.2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Tucker v. Dianne Elect., Inc., 389 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1984) (where judgment is void, there is no time limitation under Rule 1.540(b)).

Florida courts before and after the adoption of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) have stated that a void judgment may be attacked "at any time" because such judgment creates no binding obligation upon the parties, is legally ineffective, and is a nullity. See Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2 (1939); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926); Florida Power Light Co. v. Canal Authority, 423 So.2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Tucker v. Dianne Elect., Inc., 389 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Although the trial court's denial of the husband's motion for relief under rule 1.540 stated that the motion was not brought within a "reasonable time" it actually appears the trial court was concerned with the doctrine of laches as the court explicitly mentioned that granting the husband relief from the void judgment would prejudice the wife because she had made improvements to the property.