## Facts

- Sutton Hill Associates (Sutton) filed suit in Florida against Donald Schupak, a New York resident.
- Sutton sued Schupak in his capacity as the last director and trustee of Jesson, Inc., a dissolved corporation.
- Sutton attempted to serve Schupak at his apartment building in New York City.
- The process server went to the building and asked the doorman to call up to Schupak’s apartment.
- Schupak was not home at the time of the attempted service.
- Schupak’s maid was in the apartment; she refused to allow the process server to come up.
- The maid did not reside in Schupak’s apartment.
- The process server left the summons and complaint with the doorman as an attempt at substituted service.
- Schupak did not receive the summons and complaint and did not file a responsive pleading.
- The trial court entered a clerk’s default and then a final judgment for Sutton, entered against Schupak in his individual capacity.
- Schupak moved to vacate the default judgment and to quash service of process, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction because service was invalid.
- The trial court denied both motions, and Schupak appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether leaving the summons and complaint with a building doorman, after the doorman spoke by phone with a maid who did not reside in the apartment, satisfied substituted service under Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1) (1993).
2. If service was insufficient, whether the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction such that the default judgment had to be vacated and the service quashed.

## Decision

- The Fourth District reversed the order denying Schupak’s motion to vacate the judgment and motion to quash service of process.
- The court held that Sutton did not properly serve Schupak under § 48.031(1) because Schupak was not personally served and the papers were not left at his usual place of abode with a person residing in the abode who was at least 15 years old and informed of the contents.
- Leaving process with a doorman who did not reside in Schupak’s apartment did not qualify as substituted service.
- Because service was improper, the trial court never acquired in personam jurisdiction over Schupak, and the default judgment could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is required.
- When a court’s in personam jurisdiction depends on service of process, insufficient service means the court lacks personal jurisdiction.
- Under Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1) (1993), service of original process is made either by personal delivery to the person to be served or by leaving copies at the defendant’s usual place of abode with a person residing in the abode who is 15 years of age or older and informing that person of the contents.
- Delivery to an intermediary who does not reside in the defendant’s dwelling (such as an apartment building doorman) does not satisfy the “person residing therein” requirement for substituted service.

## Conclusion

Schupak v. Sutton Hill Associates holds that substituted service under § 48.031(1) was ineffective where a process server left the summons and complaint with a New York City apartment doorman after being denied entry by a maid who did not reside in the apartment; because the statute’s requirements were not met, the Florida trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and the order refusing to vacate the default judgment and quash service was reversed.


Schupak v. Sutton Hill Associates, 710 So. 2d 707 (1998)