Coin Copies, Inc. v. Fin. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 439 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Coin Copies, Inc. v. Fin. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 439 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Redfield Invs. v. Village of Pinecrest (fladistctapp, 2008-09-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Redfield Invs. v. Village of Pinecrest
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Dade County, 439 So.2d 338, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see *1140 also Perpro Sys.
cited Cited "see" Perpro Systems International, Inc. v. Rickbeil
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coin Copies, Inc. v. Financial Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 439 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
discussed Cited "see" Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Guadamuz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patterson v. Slacker, 439 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Division of Corrections v. Wynn, 438 So.2d 446, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Warning Safety Lights, Inc. v. Gallor, 346 So.2d 92, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert, denied, 355 So.2d 518 (Fla.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COIN COPIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
FINANCIAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF DADE COUNTY, a United States Corporation, Appellee.
83-660.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 18, 1983.
439 So. 2d 338
Hubbart, Nesbitt and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Henry W. Clar, Coral Gables, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Coin Copies, Inc., the defendant below, appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to quash service by publication made upon it pursuant to Section 49.051, Florida Statutes (1981). The appellant contends, and we agree, that the record, containing the affidavit of the attorney for the plaintiff-association which alleged in conclusory terms that he had made "diligent search and inquiry ... to discover the names and whereabouts of all persons upon whom the service of process would bind the corporation," and the attorney's elucidating statement that his diligent search and inquiry consisted solely of the fact that the sheriff on seven occasions during an approximate one-month period had been unsuccessful in effecting personal service upon the defendant-corporation, provided an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that all officers, directors, general managers, cashiers, resident agents and business agents of the corporation were either absent from the state, could not be found within the state, were concealing themselves, or that their whereabouts were unknown, and thus, an insufficient predicate for constructive service. See Robinson v. Cornelius, 377 So.2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and cases cited therein.

Reversed with directions to quash the service by publication.