## Facts

- Carlos Malagon gave Tartus Group, Inc. (Tartus) $200,000 in exchange for a promissory note.
- Charlie Aboudraah and Micheline Chahda were directors of Tartus; Chahda was also Tartus’s registered agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation.
- Tartus was later administratively dissolved.
- Malagon sued Tartus, Aboudraah, and Chahda to enforce the promissory note.
- The process server personally served Chahda, including service on her as Tartus’s registered agent.
- The process server served Aboudraah by substituted service on Chahda, his ex-wife, at the home where the process server reported they resided.
- The affidavit/return of service stated the server delivered the summons and complaint to a resident of the same household over age 15 and explained the contents, including that each defendant had 20 days to respond to avoid default.
- No responsive pleadings were filed, defaults were entered, and the trial court entered a final default judgment for $267,216.83 against Aboudraah, Chahda, and Tartus.
- Aboudraah and Chahda moved to vacate the default final judgment, arguing: (1) substituted service on Chahda was not valid service on Aboudraah; (2) Aboudraah could not timely respond because Chahda did not inform him about the papers; and (3) Chahda did not understand her legal obligations because she lacked English mastery. They also argued the note was a corporate debt and Malagon did not allege individual wrongdoing.
- The trial court denied the motion, and Aboudraah and Chahda appealed.

## Issues

1. After entry of a default final judgment, did Aboudraah and Chahda prove by clear and convincing evidence that service of process was invalid such that the judgment should be set aside?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to vacate the default final judgment based on the asserted service defect and claimed inability to respond?

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate the default final judgment.
- The court held that, after default, the burden is on the defaulting party to prove invalid service by clear and convincing evidence, and Aboudraah and Chahda did not meet that burden.
- The process server’s sworn return reflecting substituted service on a resident of the same household over age 15, with an explanation of the summons’s contents, supported the trial court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- After a default judgment is entered, the defaulting party bears the burden to establish invalid service of process by clear and convincing evidence.
- A sworn return/affidavit of service showing statutory substituted service (service on a resident of the same household over age 15 at the defendant’s residence) creates a strong presumption that service was valid.
- A trial court’s ruling on a motion to vacate a default judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Claims that a defendant did not learn about the lawsuit from the person who accepted substituted service, or did not fully understand legal obligations, generally do not defeat a facially valid return of service without stronger proof meeting the clear-and-convincing standard.

## Conclusion

The appellate court left the default final judgment in place because Aboudraah and Chahda did not provide clear and convincing evidence overcoming the process server’s sworn return showing valid substituted service, and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying their motion to vacate.


Aboudraah v. Tartus Group, Inc., 795 So. 2d 79 (2000)