Hesser v. Flick
758 So. 2d 1266, 2000 WL 725070, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6833 (2000)
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama law, service of process on an out-of-state individual via certified mail with 'restricted delivery' is invalid if the mail is signed for by a third party who has not been specifically authorized in writing by the addressee to accept service. A judgment entered by a court lacking personal jurisdiction due to such improper service is void and not entitled to full faith and credit.
Facts:
- Jerry Flick, a Florida resident, contracted with Metal Foam Industries, Inc., an Alabama company owned by Frank J. Hesser, for the construction of a modular home in Alabama.
- The contract specified that the home was for Flick's use in Florida and had to be built in accordance with Florida requirements.
- Flick alleged that the modular home was neither completed on time nor built according to the required Florida standards.
- Metal Foam initiated a lawsuit against Flick in Alabama and attempted service by sending the summons and complaint via certified mail with restricted delivery to an address in Miami.
- The Miami address was for Flick Mortgage Investors, a company owned by Flick's son, where Flick was not an employee.
- An employee/receptionist at Flick Mortgage Investors, Jennifer Cervantes, signed the return receipt for the certified mail.
- Flick had never provided Jennifer Cervantes with written authorization to accept service of process on his behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- Metal Foam Industries sued Jerry Flick for breach of contract in the Circuit Court of Marengo County, Alabama.
- After Flick failed to respond, the Alabama court entered a final default judgment against him on May 11, 1998.
- On June 26, 1997, Flick had filed a separate breach of contract suit against Frank Hesser and Metal Foam (appellants) in a Florida trial court.
- The Florida trial court conducted a non-jury trial and entered a final judgment for Flick on November 2, 1998.
- Hesser and Metal Foam (appellants) appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal, which reversed and remanded the case.
- The appellate court instructed the trial court to determine if the Alabama judgment was valid and if it barred the Florida action under the doctrine of res judicata.
- On remand, the Florida trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the Alabama judgment invalid due to improper service, and again entered final judgment in favor of Flick.
- Hesser and Metal Foam (appellants) appealed this new final judgment and order to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does service of process by certified mail with restricted delivery on an out-of-state defendant, when signed for by a person not specifically authorized in writing by the defendant, confer personal jurisdiction over that defendant under Alabama law?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
No. Service of process by certified mail with restricted delivery is not valid under Alabama law when signed for by a person who lacks specific written authorization from the defendant, and therefore it fails to confer personal jurisdiction. Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2 requires strict compliance for out-of-state service on an individual, mandating the use of certified mail with 'restricted delivery.' Postal regulations, integrated by reference into Alabama's rules, define restricted delivery as delivery only to the addressee or an agent specifically authorized in writing. It is undisputed that Flick did not sign the return receipt, nor did he provide written authorization for the receptionist, Jennifer Cervantes, to do so. Because the service was not properly executed, the legal presumption of correct service never attached. Consequently, the Alabama court never acquired in personam jurisdiction over Flick, rendering its default judgment void and unenforceable in Florida.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of strict compliance with the technical rules governing service of process, particularly when asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. It affirms that a judgment entered without valid personal jurisdiction is void and cannot be given full faith and credit by another state's courts. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for litigants, demonstrating that a procedural failure in serving process can invalidate an otherwise conclusive judgment, preventing its enforcement and allowing for collateral attack in a different jurisdiction.
