## Facts

- Carol Sullivan sued Lance Koster (and others) in Florida circuit court.
- A process server went to Koster’s residence on November 7, 2009, and left the summons and complaint with Koster’s sister-in-law inside the home while Koster was absent.
- The return of service reflected substituted service on the sister-in-law and stated the date and time of service.
- It was undisputed that the sister-in-law was over 15 and that the process server explained the nature of the papers to her.
- Koster did not respond to the complaint, a clerk’s default was entered, and he did not appear at the default judgment hearing.
- Koster moved to set aside the default and partial final default judgment and to quash service, asserting (1) defective substituted service because his sister-in-law allegedly did not reside at the home and (2) facial defects in the return of service.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the return was facially sufficient and that Koster failed to prove invalid service by clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the return of service complied with § 48.21, Florida Statutes (2010), such that it was regular on its face and entitled to a presumption of valid service.
2. Whether Koster produced clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of valid service, including proof that the sister-in-law was not a resident of the household or that the process server failed to explain the papers.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying Koster’s motion to set aside the default, set aside the partial final default judgment, and quash service.
- The court held the return of service was regular on its face under a strict reading of § 48.21.
- Because the return was facially valid, service was presumed valid and Koster bore the burden to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Conflicting evidence on the sister-in-law’s residency, coupled with the lack of testimony that the papers were not explained, supported the trial court’s finding that Koster did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility and fact findings made after the evidentiary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- A return of service that is regular on its face under § 48.21 creates a presumption that service was validly made.
- When the return is facially regular, the burden shifts to the party challenging service to rebut validity by clear and convincing evidence.
- A return need not recite every element of substituted service to be facially sufficient; alleged underlying defects are addressed through rebuttal evidence, not by treating the return as facially invalid.
- Appellate review generally defers to trial-court fact findings on disputed service issues when supported by competent, substantial evidence after an evidentiary hearing.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because the return of service satisfied statutory requirements on its face, triggering a presumption of proper service that Koster failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the evidentiary record.


Koster v. Sullivan, 103 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)