## Facts

- Craig Hornsby sued Armet S.N.C. di Ferronato Giovanni & Company, an Italian manufacturer, in Florida.
- Armet was served in Venice, Italy on March 12, 1995 pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.
- Armet did not appear; a default was entered on October 9, 1995.
- The trial court entered a final default judgment on April 10, 1997.
- Proof/documentation of service was not filed before the default or the final judgment; it was introduced later at a hearing on Armet’s motion to set aside the judgment on November 7, 1998.
- Armet moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under the Hague Convention and that the return of service was defective.
- The trial court denied the motion, and Armet appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a default judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction under Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention when the court enters judgment against a nonappearing foreign defendant without proof of service on file at the time of judgment.
2. Whether an alleged defect in the return/certificate of service under Article 6 of the Hague Service Convention deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
3. Whether Armet’s challenge based on the timing or form of proof of service was untimely under Florida law.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying relief from the default judgment.
- Actual service in Italy gave the trial court jurisdiction over Armet.
- Noncompliance with the timing or filing of proof of service under the Hague Convention did not make the judgment void; at most it was voidable under Florida law.
- Any objection to the absence or defect of the return/proof of service was untimely given Armet’s delay after service, default, and final judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Service Convention does not itself specify the remedy for failures to comply with its service-proof provisions; the forum’s law supplies the consequences unless inconsistent with the Convention.
- Under Florida law, jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the fact of service, not the filing of a return of service.
- Where service actually occurs and provides notice, irregularities in the return or proof of service render a resulting judgment voidable rather than void.
- Challenges to voidable defaults based on procedural irregularities in service documentation may be waived if not raised promptly.

## Conclusion

Because Armet was actually served abroad under the Hague Service Convention and the defects alleged concerned only the timing or form of service documentation, Florida law treated the resulting default judgment as voidable, and Armet’s delayed attack was untimely; the denial of the motion to set aside was affirmed.


Armet S.N.C. di Ferronato Giovanni & Co. v. Hornsby, 744 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)