## Facts

- Aser Ones, Gladys Ones, and Adam A. Johnson sued Southeastern Termite and Pest (Southeastern), a pest-control company, in Florida circuit court.
- Celso P. Saenz was Southeastern’s president and was alleged to be its registered agent for service.
- The plaintiffs’ process server filed an affidavit of service stating that, on March 29, 2000, he personally served Southeastern by delivering the summons and complaint to Saenz at Saenz’s home address, 208 Rich Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida.
- Southeastern did not file a timely response to the complaint.
- On May 1, 2000, the clerk entered a default against Southeastern.
- About six months later, Southeastern moved to vacate the clerk’s default, asserting that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Southeastern was never served.
- In support, Southeastern filed a sworn affidavit stating that Saenz did not live at 208 Rich Drive on March 29, 2000, because he had moved about five weeks earlier to 1853 Bell Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, and therefore was not served as the process server claimed.
- Southeastern also asserted it had only recently learned of the lawsuit and default and that it had a meritorious defense.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate without conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve the conflict between the process server’s affidavit and Southeastern’s sworn denial.
- Southeastern appealed the order denying its request to set aside the clerk’s default.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Southeastern’s motion to vacate the clerk’s default without an evidentiary hearing when Southeastern’s sworn allegations directly contradicted the return of service and, if true, would show lack of personal service and lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the order denying Southeastern’s motion to vacate the clerk’s default.
- The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Saenz was in fact personally served as stated in the affidavit of service.
- The appellate court did not decide whether service actually occurred; it held only that the factual dispute could not be resolved without taking evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A facially sufficient return or affidavit of service is generally treated as strong evidence that service was properly made.
- That showing can be contested when a defendant submits sworn, specific facts that directly contradict the claimed service and, if proven, would defeat personal jurisdiction.
- When a motion attacking service presents allegations that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, the trial court commits reversible error by denying the motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed facts.
- A default entered without valid service is void for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the service question must be resolved before allowing the default to stand.

## Conclusion

Because Southeastern presented sworn allegations that Saenz did not live at the address where the process server claimed personal service occurred—and those allegations, if true, would mean the court lacked personal jurisdiction—the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion to vacate the clerk’s default; the denial was reversed and the case was remanded for that hearing.


Southeastern Termite and Pest v. Ones, 792 So. 2d 1266 (2001)