Although almost two years elapsed between the filing of the complaint and service of it upon the appellees, the service of the complaint nonetheless preceded the filing of the appellee's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and, of course, the dismissal. Because we have so clearly held that service of process upon a defendant before the filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute constitutes sufficient record activity to preclude dismissal, Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Fields v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 449 So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and because, with the advent of the 1977 amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), a trial court no longer has "inherent power to dismiss a cause for failure to prosecute where there is activity of record within one year prior to the order of dismissal," Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304, 304; see Lanahan v. Lentini, 457 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); American Salvage and Jobbing Company, Inc. v. Salomon, 367 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we unhesitatingly reverse the order of dismissal entered below and remand the cause for further proceedings. Anomalously, despite the fact that the trial judge apparently dismissed the case based not on Rule 1.420(e), but upon her supposed inherent authority, the order reads in pertinent part that the motion is granted "pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), Fla.R.Civ.P., with prejudice for failure to serve summons over 21 months from date of iss

The law is clear that an action may not be dismissed for lack of prosecution when the period of inactivity is less than the one year provided for in Rule 1.420(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lanahan v. Lentini, 457 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The facts of this case reflect that it was equally inappropriate for the trial court to dismiss this action for the failure to attend the July 26, 1988, hearing.

See Nektaredes v. Sagonias, 432 So.2d 769, 770 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Glassalum Engineering Corp. v. 392208 Ontario Ltd., 487 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the order dismissing the cause is

PER CURIAM. The trial court's order dismissing the instant case is reversed upon a holding that a trial court is precluded "from exercising its supposed inherent, discretionary power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute when, as in this case, there is activity of record within one year prior to the dismissal," American Salvage Jobbing Co. v. Salomon, 367 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and this rule cannot be circumvented under the guise of dismissing the case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to respond to the court's order requiring it to explain its inaction in the case where such inaction was for a period of less than a year. Reversed.

Within the one year period before the motion to dismiss was filed, Fields perfected service of process on Florida Farm Bureau. Service of process upon a defendant constitutes record activity. Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). REVERSED and REMANDED.