Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (2025)

Substituted service on nonresidents and foreign business entities engaging in business in state or concealing their whereabouts.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

¹48.181 Substituted service on nonresidents and foreign business entities engaging in business in state or concealing their whereabouts.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “foreign business entity” means any corporation or other business entity that is incorporated, formed, or existing under the laws of any other state, territory, or commonwealth, or the laws of any foreign country.

(2) The acceptance by any individual who is a resident of any other state, territory, or commonwealth, or of any foreign country, or by any foreign business entity of the privilege extended by law to nonresidents to operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on a business or business venture in this state, or to have an office or agency in this state, is deemed to constitute an appointment by the individual or foreign business entity of the Secretary of State of this state as its agent on whom process in any action or proceeding against the individual or foreign business entity, or any combination thereof, arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the business or business venture may be served as substituted service in accordance with this chapter. The acceptance of the privilege is signification of the agreement of the respective individual or foreign business entity that the process served against it in accordance with this chapter is of the same validity as if served personally on the individual or foreign business entity.

(3) If a foreign business entity has registered to do business in this state and has maintained its registration in an active status or otherwise continued to have a registered agent designated in accordance with s. 48.091, personal service of process must first be attempted on the foreign business entity in the manner and order of priority described in this chapter as applicable to the foreign business entity. If, after due diligence, the party seeking to effectuate service of process is unable to effectuate service of process on the foreign business entity in the manner and order of priority provided in this chapter, the party may use substituted service of process on the Secretary of State.

(4) Any individual or foreign business entity that conceals its whereabouts is deemed to have appointed the Secretary of State as its agent on whom all process may be served, in any action or proceeding against such individual or foreign business entity, arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to any business or business venture carried on in this state by such individual or foreign business entity.

(5) Any individual who was a resident of this state and who subsequently became a nonresident is deemed to have appointed the Secretary of State as his or her agent on whom all process may be served in any action or proceeding against such individual arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to any business or business venture carried on in this state by such individual.

(6) Any individual or foreign business entity that sells, consigns, or leases by any means whatsoever tangible or intangible personal property, through brokers, jobbers, wholesalers, or distributors to any individual, corporation, or other business entity in this state is conclusively presumed to be both engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within this state and operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state.

(7) Service pursuant to this section must be effectuated in the manner prescribed by s. 48.161.

History.—s. 1, ch. 6224, 1911; RGS 2602; CGL 4249; s. 1, ch. 26657, 1951; s. 1, ch. 57-747; s. 4, ch. 67-254; s. 2, ch. 84-2; s. 279, ch. 95-147; s. 12, ch. 2022-190; s. 4, ch. 2025-13.

¹Note.—Section 5, ch. 2025-13, provides:

“(1) The amendments made to chapter 48, Florida Statutes, by chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida, apply to causes of action that accrued on or after January 2, 2023, and to all causes of action that accrued before January 2, 2023, for which service of process was effectuated on or after January 2, 2023.

“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any service of process that occurred between January 2, 2023, and October 1, 2025, which has not been invalidated by a court, is valid if such service complied with either chapter 48, Florida Statutes, as amended by chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida, or the laws governing service of process in effect before January 2, 2023, which would have applied in the absence of chapter 2022-190, Laws of Florida.

“(3) The amendments made by this act apply to all service of process made or effectuated on or after October 1, 2025, regardless of whether the cause of action accrued before, on, or after October 1, 2025.

“(4) This section does not extend or modify the time for challenging the validity of any service of process and does not revive any ability to challenge the validity of service of process which has previously been waived.”

Note.—Former s. 47.16.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 258 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assocs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assocs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1975). · cites it 57× “The activities of the person sought to be served pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard, 954 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). · cites it 12× “§ 48.181, Fla. Stat. (2005); Labbee, 913 So.”

Labbee v. Harrington, 913 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). · cites it 10× “The court found that Labbee failed to properly plead "the actual statutory language or allegations of the ultimate facts" under section 48.181, Florida Statutes (2003), thereby failing to invoke jurisdiction over Harrington.”

Bloom v. AH Pond Co., Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Fla. 1981). · cites it 8× “4th DCA 1978) (discussing § 48.181, Fla.Stat. only), with *1168 Joyce Brothers Storage & Van Company v.”

Bank of Wessington v. Winters Gov't SEC. Corp., 361 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 9× “The activities of the person sought to be served *760 pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1975). · cites it 14× “Where, as here, the per curiam affirmance without opinion could have been based on more than one statute, the petitioner must show that a conflict would be created between the decision sub judice and a decision of a District Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court, regardless of…”

Citizens State Bank v. Winters Govern. Sec. Corp., 361 So. 2d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 9× “The activities of the person sought to be served pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

DeVaney v. Rumsch, 228 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1969). · cites it 11× “The Court held: [3] "There is no question that the provision of Fla. Stat. § 48.181 , F.S.A. applies to individuals.”

Am. Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, 359 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 15× “161, F.S. 48.181 and F.S. 48.182. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process, stating that it was a foreign corporation not doing business in Florida at the time the injury…”

Gulf Atl. Transp. Co. v. Offshore Tugs, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 823 (M.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 23× “Fla.Stat. § 48.181 states, in relevant part, the following: (1) The acceptance by .”

Hitt v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 399 F. Supp. 838 (S.D. Fla. 1975). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff urges that the contacts of Nissan-Japan treated elsewhere within this memorandum opinion constitute doing or transacting business under F. S.A. § 48.181. 31 Only alternatively and as a iast resort does plaintiff seek to pierce the corporate veil and hold Nissan-Japan…”

Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 224 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). · cites it 8× “Specifically, Green Emerald argued that under section 48.181, Fannie Mae’s substitute service of process was not valid because Fannie Mae failed to allege in its complaint that Green Emerald was either a nonresident of Florida or a resident which had concealed its whereabouts.”

Show all 258 citing cases →

— 48.181(1) — 64 cases

Bank of Wessington v. Winters Gov't SEC. Corp., 361 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). “The activities of the person sought to be served *760 pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

Chase Manhattan Bank v. BANCO DEL, 343 So. 2d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977).

Citizens State Bank v. Winters Govern. Sec. Corp., 361 So. 2d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). “The activities of the person sought to be served pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

Am. Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, 359 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978). “161, F.S. 48.181 and F.S. 48.182. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process, stating that it was a foreign corporation not doing business in Florida at the time the injury…”

Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assocs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1975). “The activities of the person sought to be served pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.181 (1) must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.”

— 48.181(2) — 8 cases

Wasden v. Yamaha Motor Co., 131 F.R.D. 206 (M.D. Fla. 1990).

Vega Glen v. Club Méditerranée S.A., 359 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2005).

WCTU Ry. Co. v. Szilagyi, 511 So. 2d 727 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Am. Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, 308 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975).

Ulloa v. CMI, Inc., 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2013).

— 48.181(3) — 24 cases

Sun Trust Bank v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1975). “Where, as here, the per curiam affirmance without opinion could have been based on more than one statute, the petitioner must show that a conflict would be created between the decision sub judice and a decision of a District Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court, regardless of…”

Am. Motors Corp. v. Abrahantes, 474 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).

Tobacco Merchants Ass'n v. Broin, 657 So. 2d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

McClenon v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 726 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Fla. 1989).

— 48.181(4) — 3 cases

Aguila v. RQM+ LLC (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Medina Vega v. PBS Constr. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Fundamental Nutrition LLC v. Emerge Nutraceuticals Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2023).

— 48.181(5) — 1 case

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Adelman (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 48.181(6) — 1 case

Angarita v. Hypertoyz, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.