substituted service of process IS invalid when effectuated upon an inmate's wife at the home where the inmate resided prior to his incarceration because the home did not constitute the inmate's usual place of abode under Florida Statutes, Section 48.031(1)(a) (1997).

An inmate incarcerated since May 1997 was named as a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action filed in March 1998.  The plaintiff in the mortgage foreclosure action attempted to serve the inmate  by substituted service upon his wife, at their home where they resided together before his incarceration.  The inmate did not respond and the plaintiff secured a default and a summary final judgment of foreclosure, following which the Clerk of the Court sold the property at a foreclosure sale.

Several months later, the inmate sought to set aside the judgment, arguing that he was not properly served and, accordingly, the judgment was void.  Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the inmate properly was served with process and refused to set aside the judgment, finding that the inmate’s “usual place of abode” was the home where he was living with his family before incarceration and where his family continued to reside.  The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding that a person’s “usual place of abode,” under Florida law, is the place where the person actually is living at the time that substituted service is completed.  See FLA. STAT. 48.031(1)(a) (1997).  The Court’s Chief Justice concurred in the result only, arguing that Florida law provides a specific means for service upon inmates and, therefore, resort to substituted service provisions is not appropriate.  See FLA. STAT. 48.051 (“Process against a state prisoner shall be served on the prisoner”).

Shurman v. Atlantic Mortgage & Invest. Corp.,
26 Fla. L. Weekly S574 (Fla. Sept. 6, 2001).