## Facts

- Robert A. Kaplus sued Daniel J. Decker and Angela S. Decker in Orange County, Florida.
- A summons issued from Orange County (Ninth Judicial Circuit) was served on the Deckers in Lake County (Fifth Judicial Circuit) by a certified process server.
- The server was certified to serve process in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, but under the then-applicable statute was authorized to serve only when the action was filed and served within the same circuit.
- The server was not appointed or authorized as a special process server under the applicable statute.
- A default and default judgment were entered against the Deckers.
- About two and one-half years later, the Deckers moved to set aside the default judgment as void for lack of valid service; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a default judgment is void, and thus subject to attack at any time, when process is served by a statutorily unauthorized process server despite the defendants’ actual notice.
2. Whether such service constitutes a total absence of service depriving the court of personal jurisdiction, or an irregular/defective service that confers jurisdiction and makes the judgment voidable only.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment.
- Service was defective under the governing process-server statutes because the server lacked proper authority.
- The defect did not render service void because the Deckers received actual notice of the suit.
- The default judgment was voidable rather than void and could not be collaterally attacked as void more than two and one-half years after entry.

## Legal Principles

- A total want of service with no notice confers no personal jurisdiction and makes a judgment void.
- Irregular or defective service that provides actual notice confers personal jurisdiction, making the resulting judgment voidable, not void, and not subject to collateral attack as void.
- Noncompliance with statutory process-server authorization requirements, standing alone, does not make a judgment void when defendants actually received notice; relief is subject to procedural and timeliness limits for setting aside voidable judgments.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the process server was not properly authorized under the applicable Florida statutes, the defendants’ actual notice meant the service was merely defective, so the default judgment was voidable only and could not be set aside as void years later.


Decker v. Kaplus, 763 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2000)