## Facts

- In 2005, Sheila Scott-Lubin (wife) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Paul J. Lubin (husband).
- The wife obtained permission to serve the husband by publication because she could not locate him.
- The husband did not answer or appear.
- In 2006, the trial court entered a default final judgment dissolving the marriage and also awarding the wife the marital residence, two vehicles, permanent alimony, and attorney’s fees and costs.
- In 2008, the wife sought to enforce the final judgment.
- On May 14, 2008, the husband’s counsel filed a notice of appearance in the case.
- On June 5, 2008, the husband appeared pro se at a hearing before a general magistrate on the wife’s enforcement request, participated in the hearing, and stated he had not paid because he was not aware the final judgment had been entered.
- On July 14, 2008, the trial court adopted the general magistrate’s recommendations and ordered the husband to pay alimony arrearages and court costs.
- On June 8, 2008, after the enforcement hearing, the husband (through counsel) moved to vacate the 2006 final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter economic relief because he was never personally served.
- The trial court granted the motion in part, concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction to adjudicate ancillary economic issues, and ruled the 2006 judgment was void except for the dissolution of the marriage.
- The wife appealed the order vacating the alimony and property provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the husband’s appearance and active participation in post-judgment enforcement proceedings operated as a general appearance that waived any objection to defective service of process and personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating the economic provisions of the 2006 default final judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction after the husband participated in enforcement proceedings without timely limiting his appearance to jurisdictional objections.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order that set aside the economic provisions of the 2006 final judgment.
- Although constructive service by publication generally does not support in personam awards such as alimony and property division, the husband’s conduct in the enforcement proceedings constituted a general appearance.
- By appearing (including counsel’s filed appearance) and participating in the enforcement hearing without restricting his appearance to contest service or jurisdiction, the husband waived any objection to defective service and personal jurisdiction.
- The appellate court reviewed the personal-jurisdiction and service questions de novo and held the trial court incorrectly declared the economic portions of the judgment void.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive service (service by publication) generally is not enough, by itself, to support in personam relief such as alimony and determinations of personal financial obligations.
- A party who makes a general appearance—by appearing and actively participating in proceedings on the merits without timely raising and preserving a jurisdictional objection—waives objections to defective service of process and personal jurisdiction.
- A judgment may be void for lack of personal jurisdiction when a party neither receives notice nor participates; participation in the case can remove it from that category by waiver.
- Appellate review of rulings on personal jurisdiction and sufficiency of service is de novo.

## Conclusion

Because the husband appeared and participated in the post-judgment enforcement proceedings without timely limiting his appearance to contest service or personal jurisdiction, he made a general appearance and waived any defect in service; therefore, the trial court erred in vacating the alimony and property provisions of the 2006 default final judgment.


Scott-Lubin v. Lubin, 49 So. 3d 838 (2010)