## Facts

- Katie Seymour sued Panchita Investment, Inc. (Panchita) on behalf of her minor daughter, alleging the child was injured in an apartment owned and maintained by Panchita.
- Seymour attempted to serve Panchita through Jorge Ramos, Panchita’s registered agent.
- The summons, however, identified Ramos as the “defendant” in his individual capacity, rather than identifying Panchita as the party being served through its registered agent.
- The caption and the allegations in the pleadings identified Panchita Investment, Inc. as the defendant.
- The process server’s verified return (affidavit of service) stated that Ramos was served in his individual capacity.
- Panchita did not appear or respond; a default was entered.
- A jury trial proceeded on damages without Panchita’s participation, and the court entered a money judgment against Panchita.
- Panchita later moved to vacate the default judgment as void, arguing the summons and return were defective and did not effect service on the corporation.
- The trial court granted Panchita’s motion and set aside the judgment.
- Seymour appealed the order vacating the default judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant when the summons and verified return of service reflected service on the corporation’s registered agent only in his individual capacity, rather than service on the corporation through an authorized agent.
2. Whether the presence of the corporation’s name in the caption and allegations can cure defects in the summons and return of service sufficient to sustain a default and default final judgment.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the order setting aside the default and default final judgment.
- The court agreed that the summons and verified return of service were defective and legally ineffectual to serve Panchita Investment, Inc., so the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter a default judgment.
- The court acknowledged that Panchita likely knew it was being sued, but held that such awareness does not substitute for valid service.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits based on Seymour’s more recent efforts to obtain proper service.

## Legal Principles

- A court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant only through proper service of process that complies with applicable rules and statutes.
- When serving a corporation, the service papers must show service on the corporation through an authorized representative (such as a registered agent) in that representative capacity.
- Defects in the summons and the return of service that make service legally ineffectual deprive the court of personal jurisdiction and render a resulting default judgment void.
- A defendant’s actual knowledge of a lawsuit does not cure defective service or supply personal jurisdiction.
- When a default judgment is set aside for lack of valid service, the proper disposition may be remand for further proceedings so the plaintiff may attempt proper service, rather than dismissal of the action.

## Conclusion

Because the summons and verified return of service reflected service on Panchita’s registered agent only in his individual capacity and not service on Panchita Investment, Inc. through an authorized agent, the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the corporation; the default final judgment was therefore void, the order vacating it was affirmed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings following renewed attempts at proper service.


Seymour v. Panchita Investment, Inc., 28 So. 3d 194 (2010)