On appeal, homeowners raise for the first time their argument that the judgment is void for lack of service of process of the amended complaint. As this is a fundamental error, we can address it on appeal. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970) (“ ‘Fundamental error,’ which can be considered on appeal without objection in the lower court, is error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.”); see also Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla.1951); Miceli v. Miceli, 489 So.2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 explains when service is required:
We have carefully considered the pleadings, the depositions, and the exhibits, especially the "Territory Agreement" between the Seven-Up Company of Missouri and its Miami dealer. We agree with the district court that in the circumstances of this case service on the local dealer, the Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., cannot be said to be adequate service upon the Seven-Up Company of Missouri. Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 5 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 544; Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, Fla., 54 So.2d 196; 113 A.L.R. 9, 108. Cf. Roumel v. Drill Well Oil Company, 5 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 550. Affirmed.
Further efforts of plaintiff to persuade defendant to reconsider said decision were fruitless. "(f) Plaintiff thereafter employed attorneys to vacate and set aside said judgment, and the efforts of the attorneys resulted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196, decided Dec. 4, 1951, which vacated and set aside said judgment, remanding the same for a new trial, for the reasons set forth therein. Defendant then took over the defense of said action and defended plaintiff therein in accordance with the terms of said insurance policy.
He must be authorized to manage the business of the corporation or some branch of it within the state and stand in the shoes of the foreign corporation." Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1951). Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Reed, a security guard, has "general authority to act for [Defendant] within" Florida, and there is no reason to believe that she does.
He must be authorized to manage the business of the corporation or some branch of it within the state and stand in the shoes of the foreign corporation. See Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1951). While it is clear that Paul Shockley was made a vice president of INPECA for purposes of settling an instance of litigation and that mail has been sent to INPECA via Signal International and Mr. Shockley from time to time, the record does not support Plaintiff's service of process on Mr. Shockley or his company.
The corporation had made him "more than one appointed for a limited or particular purpose." SeeBank of Am., N.A. v. Bornstein , 39 So. 3d 500, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson , 54 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1951) ). Walton had the authority to act for the corporation, and his duties closely resembled those of an officer.
Its duties must be closely related to the duties of the officers of the corporation." Int'l Steel Truss Co. v. Artec Group, Inc., 824 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quoting Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1951)). "For purposes of service of process, a business agent has been held to be the person who represents the corporation and who officially speaks for it in the local business affairs of the corporation.
Its duties must be closely related to the duties of the officers of the corporation." Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1951) (referring to § 47.17(4), Fla. Stat. (1941)). See also Southeastern Mail Transp., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 402 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Dade Erection Serv., 379 So.2d at 425.
Service on an agent or employee for a different corporation in Illinois is insufficient service on Taito. See Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1951); Southeastern Mail Transport, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 402 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Dade Erection Service, Inc. v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 379 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). For purposes of validating service on a corporation, a business agent must have the general authority to act for the corporation. Id. Neither Taito America nor its employee meets these requirements.
The record is devoid of the required motion for stay, notice of hearing and order granting a stay based on evidence and applicable substantive law. See Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, 54 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1951); H. Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure, Relief from Executions § 27-2 (1991 ed.). For the reasons stated, the stay is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consistent proceedings.