Opinion
No. 5D15–1697.
03-04-2016
Britt K. LYLE, Appellant, v. PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee.
Adam H. Sudbury, of Apellie Legal Services, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant. Tony Perez and Michelle Gervais, of Blank Rome LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.
Adam H. Sudbury, of Apellie Legal Services, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.
Tony Perez and Michelle Gervais, of Blank Rome LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Britt K. Lyle (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure case. Appellant argues that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether PennyMac Holdings, LLC, conducted a diligent search and inquiry in attempting to serve him personally with a verified complaint for residential foreclosure. Based on the record before us, which contains the motions and supporting affidavits filed by both parties, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. See Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 922 So.2d 340, 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that “[t]he party invoking the court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the validity of service of process” and that “[t]he constructive service statutes require strict compliance”); Talton v. CU Members Mortg., 126 So.3d 446, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Where the allegations of the motion to quash service of process, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, then the trial court errs in denying the motion without first affording the movant an evidentiary hearing.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.