Legal Opinion

Eyster v. Chapnick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 21, 1988No. 88-1324Published

1Per curiam

Service of process upon Eyster was void because of noncompliance with section 48.-031(1), Florida Statutes (1985). We therefore reverse on authority of Willoughby v. Seese Realty, Inc., 421 So.2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Herskowitz v. Schwarz & Schiffrin, 411 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cullimore v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, 386 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see also Carlini v. State Dept. of Legal Affairs, 521 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cullimore v. Barnett Bank of JacksonvilleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
  2. Herskowitz v. Schwarz & SchiffrinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. Carlini v. STATE, DEPT. OF LEGAL AFFAIRSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
  4. Willoughby v. Seese Realty Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982