## Facts

- The State, through the Department of Legal Affairs, filed a civil forfeiture action against real property and named Janet M. Carlini as a respondent.
- Process was directed to the subject property rather than personally served on Janet.
- Service was attempted by delivering process to Janet’s brother-in-law, Peter Carlini.
- It was undisputed that Peter did not reside at the address where service was attempted and that Janet did not live there either.
- Janet moved to quash service, attaching Peter’s affidavit stating (1) Janet did not live at the address served, (2) her whereabouts were unknown to him, and (3) he did not reside at that address.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash because it did not state how the alleged defects in service could be cured.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida procedure requires a motion to quash service of process to explain how defective service can be cured in order to obtain relief.
2. Whether substituted service was valid where process was left with a nonresident relative at an address that was not the defendant’s usual place of abode.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying the motion to quash and remanded.
- The court held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b) does not require a movant to state how defects in service can be cured; the motion must state grounds specifically and with particularity.
- The court held the attempted service was defective because process was left with a person who did not reside at the address, and the address was not the defendant’s residence.
- The court receded from its prior decision requiring a “cure” explanation and acknowledged conflict with a decision from another district.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes governing service of process must be strictly complied with to establish personal jurisdiction.
- The party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden to prove valid service of process.
- Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b), a motion challenging service/personal jurisdiction must state its grounds specifically and with particularity; it need not instruct the opposing party how to correct service.
- Substituted service is ineffective if process is not left at the defendant’s usual place of abode with a person residing therein, as required by Florida service statutes.

## Conclusion

The court held that defective substituted service could not confer personal jurisdiction and that a defendant’s motion to quash is sufficient if it identifies service defects with specificity; it need not explain how the plaintiff can cure those defects, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving valid service.


Carlini v. State, Dep’t of Legal Affs., 521 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)