Summary
reversing the denial of a motion to dismiss an amended complaint naming appellant as a defendant where "[t]here [was] nothing in this record showing any reason why the mortgagee did not timely serve process, much less anything amounting to good cause"
Summary of this case from Amaran v. MarathOpinion
No. 94-1915.
March 20, 1996.
Appeal from Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James T. Carlisle, Judge. No. CL 88-8236 AC.
Sally Docktor, Highland Beach, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
In this appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure, we reverse for failure to serve process within 120 days from the filing of the amended complaint adding appellant as a defendant.
The amended complaint first naming appellant as a defendant was deemed filed on 13 March, but process was not served on her until 3 October. Although a motion was filed and heard arguing that service was outside the 120-day rule, the trial court denied the motion. Even after a motion for reconsideration, the trial court refused to grant the motion. Later when appellant sought relief from the default, she again raised the untimeliness of service, but once again the court denied relief
There is nothing in this record showing any reason why the mortgagee did not timely serve process, much less anything amounting to good cause. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070 (i). We therefore have no alternative but to reverse and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
REVERSED.
PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.