## Facts

- Ivon Gomez filed a civil action against Telf Corporation in Florida circuit court.
- Gomez used a process server to personally serve Jesus Paredes, Telf’s registered (resident) agent, at an address identified as Paredes’s home.
- The process server filed an affidavit/return of service that was regular on its face, stating that service was made on Paredes in his capacity as Telf’s registered agent.
- Telf and Paredes moved to quash service of process.
- In support, they submitted affidavits asserting (without corroborating proof) that (1) Paredes did not reside at the address listed in the return of service and (2) Telf did not conduct business at that address.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, ruling that Telf and Paredes failed to meet their burden to rebut the presumption of valid service with clear and convincing evidence.
- Telf and Paredes appealed the order denying their motion to quash service of process.

## Issues

1. Whether a facially regular return of service may be set aside based only on the uncorroborated affidavits of the registered agent and corporation disputing residence and business activity at the service address.
2. Whether such uncorroborated affidavits satisfy the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden required to overcome the presumption that service was valid.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash service of process.
- A return of service that is regular on its face is presumed valid unless the defendant presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
- A defendant cannot defeat a facially valid return of service with a simple denial; the denial must be supported by clear and convincing, corroborating evidence.
- Because Telf and Paredes relied only on uncorroborated affidavits challenging the address and business activity, they did not carry their burden to show service was invalid.

## Legal Principles

- A process server’s return/affidavit of service that is regular on its face creates a presumption of valid service.
- The party seeking to quash service bears the burden to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
- A bare or self-serving denial of proper service, without corroboration, is insufficient to impeach a facially regular return of service.

## Conclusion

The court held that the facially regular return of service created a presumption that Telf was properly served through its registered agent, and that the appellants’ uncorroborated affidavits disputing the service address and corporate business activity did not amount to clear and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut that presumption; the order denying the motion to quash was therefore affirmed.


Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818 (1996)