502004CA000602XXXXMB LASALLE BANK V BRENDA J KELLER LEWIS

Oct 15, 2004

OUTCOME: SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED

SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED

502004CA000042XXXXMB BANK OF NEW YORK V DOUGLAS LAMKIN

Jun 18, 2004

OUTCOME: SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED

SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED

CHASE MANHATTAN BANK V GLEEN A BOOT

Mar 25, 2004

OUTCOME: FORECLOSURE DISMISSED

501988CA008898XXRFAO DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS A V GERALD P O CONNOR

Apr 02, 1991

OUTCOME: TWO(2) SUCESSFUL NON-FINAL APPEALS

DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS A V GERALD P O CONNOR

Apr 02, 1991

OUTCOME: TWO (2) SUCESSFUL NON-FINAL APPEALS

575 So.2d 801 Deja vu! Appellant asks this court to set aside a second constructive service of process upon her in the case below. In Tulpere v. Duval Federal Savings and Loan Association ... of Jacksonville, 548 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court reversed appellee's first constructive service upon appellant and held, "Simply stating that defendant's residence is unknown and that one attempt was made at service is insufficient under [the] circumstances." 548 So.2d 1190 We reverse the non-final order of the trial court denying appellant's motion to quash service of process by publication. Renee TULPERE, Appellant We reverse the non-final order of the trial court denying appellant's motion to quash service of process by publication. The record reflects that appellant is a Florida resident who was absent from the state at the time of the single attempt at service of process. In the face of the explanation in the sheriff's return, as per information supplied by a neighbor, and considering the acknowledgment in the plaintiff's affidavit that the defendant's mailing address remained at her home residence, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show why compliance with section 49.041(3)(c), Florida Statutes, was not required. <><><><><><><><><><> 575 So.2d 801 16 Fla. L. Weekly 677 Renee TULPERE, Appellant, v. DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF JACKSONVILLE, etc., et al., Appellees. No. 90-1095. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. March 13, 1991. Stephen L. Cook, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Lawrence J. Bernard of Morris & Bernard, Jacksonville, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Deja vu! Appellant asks this court to set aside a second constructive service of process upon her in the case below. In Tulpere v. Duval Federal Savings and Loan Association of Jacksonville, 548 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court reversed appellee's first constructive service upon appellant and held, "Simply stating that defendant's residence is unknown and that one attempt was made at service is insufficient under [the] circumstances." Section 49.041, Florida Statutes (1987), governing constructive service states in part: The sworn statement of the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, for service of process by publication against a natural person, shall show: * * * * * * (3) In addition to the above, that the residence of such person is, either: (a) Unknown to the affiant, or (b) In some state or country other than this state, stating said residence if known, or (c) In this state, but that he has been absent from the state for more than 60 days next preceding the making of the sworn statement, or conceals himself so that process cannot be personally served upon him, and that affiant believes that there is no person in the state upon whom service of process would bind said absent or concealed defendant. It appears from our review of the record that appellee did not attempt to serve appellant after our previous decision, but merely amended its first affidavit to read in pertinent part: 4. That the Defendant, RENEE TULPERE has concealed herself so that process cannot be personally served upon her, and affiant believes that there is no person in the state upon whom service of process would bind said absent or concealed Defendant. This fact is supported by the return of service which states that 'service was attempted numerous times and one time was told by neighbors that MS. TULPERE was in Europe. Although water and electric was on at the above address, I was unable to find anyone at home or to even determine if anyone was living there.' Again, we reverse.

501988CA008898XXRFAO DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS A V GERALD P O CONNOR

N/A

OUTCOME: TWO (2) SUCESSFUL NON-FINAL APPEALS

548 So.2d 1190 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2288 Renee TULPERE, Appellant, v. DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF JACKSONVILLE, Gerald P. O'Connor and Margaret A. O'Connor, his wife, Richard W. Mor ... rell, Paul Greiner, Julian Chapman D.D.S. and the United States of America, Appellees. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Stephen L. Cook, West Palm Beach, for appellant. John Fenn Foster of Foster & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Duval Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Jacksonville. PER CURIAM. We reverse the non-final order of the trial court denying appellant's motion to quash service of process by publication. The record reflects that appellant is a Florida resident who was absent from the state at the time of the single attempt at service of process. In the face of the explanation in the sheriff's return, as per information supplied by a neighbor, and considering the acknowledgment in the plaintiff's affidavit that the defendant's mailing address remained at her home residence, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show why compliance with section 49.041(3)(c), Florida Statutes, was not required. Simply stating that the defendant's residence is unknown and that one attempt was made at service is insufficient under these circumstances. Taylor v. Lopez, 358 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). LETTS, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.Thursday , September 22nd, 1988 Again, we reverse. The amended

501988CA002327XXRFAF HORIZON PROPERTIES, INC V C PARKS NICHOLLS 11-MAR-88

N/A

OUTCOME: MAXIMIZED OWNERS OPTIONS

COMMERCIAL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE OF RESORT HOTEL & SPA MAXIMIZED OWNERS OPTIONS DURING 4.5 YEARS OF AGGRESSIVELY CONTESTED LITIGATION.

502004CA000042XXXXMB BANK OF NEW YORK V DOUGLAS LAMKIN

N/A

OUTCOME: SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED

SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE DISMISSED