Summary
reversing the order denying a motion to quash service of process because the summons was not signed by the clerk and was not sealed by the court's official seal
Summary of this case from Vaughn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Opinion
No. 5D12–4276.
2013-07-12
Charles WOIDE and Susannah Woide, Appellant, v. FANNIE MAE, etc., Appellee.
Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Judge. Herbert S. Zischkau III, Deltona, for Appellant. Wm. David Newman, Jr., of Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Judge.
Herbert S. Zischkau III, Deltona, for Appellant. Wm. David Newman, Jr., of Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Charles and Susannah Woide, timely appeal a non-final order denying their motion to quash service of process. They argue the summonses with which they were served were defective because neither contained the deputy clerk's signature or the circuit court's official seal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a). Appellee, Fannie Mae, properly concedes error. SeeFla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a); § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Ball v. Jones, 65 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla.1953) (“When the Rule mandatorily requires that the summons shall be ‘issued by the Clerk’, it requires that the Clerk, or his lawfully authorized deputy, sign such summons as a ‘testimonial by which the authenticity of the summons is made to appear.” ’); see also Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So.3d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions.”). Accordingly, because the summonses failed to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), we reverse the order of the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.