Jurisdiction: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 2D2024-2756
Lower Tribunal: Hillsborough County, Hon. Melissa Mary Polo
Date: October 15, 2025
Panel: Kelly, J. (author); Northcutt, J., concurs; Moe, J., dissents
Counsel: Victor L. Zamora, Jr. for Appellant; Caryna M. Fuller for Appellee
Overview
The Second DCA affirmed the denial of a motion to set aside a default and the ensuing judgment, holding that service on a representative of the corporation’s registered agent was facially valid and therefore presumed proper. Because the return of service contained all four facts required by § 48.21(1), the burden shifted to the corporate defendant to rebut service with clear and convincing evidence a burden it did not meet. Arguments that depended on the hierarchy in § 48.081(3) failed, as that subsection applies only when the registered agent cannot be served. Here, service was made under § 48.081(2) and § 48.091(3) (representative of the registered agent), so the hierarchy never came into play. A new appellate argument that the server omitted the last name of “Georgia” (the person served) was not preserved and was not considered.
Background
- Plaintiff sued Navas Bar & Grill, Inc. (1701 Restaurant & Lounge) in a premises case.
- The process server delivered process at the registered agent’s address, documenting service on “Georgia as manager … authorized to accept service for Diana Molina Registered Agent.”
- Navas did not appear; default and a jury verdict followed.
- Navas moved to set aside the default for insufficient service; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, Navas argued the return was irregular and that § 48.081(3)’s “superior class” officer-absence showing was required on the face of the return.
Issues
- Was the return of service “regular on its face” under § 48.21(1)?
- Did service comply with the corporate service statutes (§ 48.081 and § 48.091)?
- Who bore the burden to prove (in)valid service once facial regularity was established?
- Could Navas raise on appeal that the server omitted the last name of the person served?
Holding
- The return was regular on its face: it stated (i) date/time received, (ii) date/time served, (iii) manner of service (corporate), and (iv) the name and representative capacity (“Georgia … authorized to accept service for [the] Registered Agent”). See § 48.21(1); Koster v. Sullivan.
- Service was proper under § 48.081(2) and § 48.091(3) by serving a representative of the designated registered agent; thus § 48.081(3)’s officer-hierarchy did not apply.
- With facial regularity, service is presumed valid, and the burden shifted to Navas to show improper service by clear and convincing evidence; Navas offered no evidence (only attorney argument).
- The “missing last name” contention was unpreserved (not raised below or briefed), so the court did not consider it.
Result: Affirmed.
Court’s Reasoning (Plain-English)
1) What a facially valid return must show
Under § 48.21(1) the return must include four facts. The return here had all four. That’s the entire facial-validity test (per Koster). Once that’s met, service is presumed proper.
2) The correct corporate-service pathway
- § 48.081(2) permits service on the registered agent.
- § 48.091(3) permits service on an individual who is a representative of the registered agent at the registered office.
- Because service was effected on a representative of the registered agent, there was no need to resort to § 48.081(3) (the officer/agent hierarchy triggered only if the registered agent cannot be served).
3) Burden-shifting matters
Once a return is facially valid, the defendant must produce clear and convincing evidence that service was improper. Navas offered no evidence about “Georgia’s” status (e.g., affidavit, testimony), so it failed to carry its burden.
4) New theories on appeal
The complaint that the server didn’t list “Georgia’s” last name was not preserved and therefore waived for appellate review. Even had the court reached it, the opinion hints this is a veracity issue (to be tested after the presumption arises), not facial regularity.
Practical Takeaways
- Checklist your return: Date/time received, date/time served, manner, name + capacity. If those appear, expect a presumption of validity.
- Serve smart: For corporations, start with the registered agent. If serving the representative at the registered office, cite § 48.091(3) in your return’s “manner/capacity” description.
- Know the hierarchy trigger: The § 48.081(3) officer hierarchy applies only when the registered agent cannot be served. Don’t argue hierarchy if service was made via registered agent/representative.
- Evidence > argument: To defeat facially valid service, defendants need affidavits/testimony attorney argument alone won’t do.
- Preserve issues: Any nit (e.g., name formatting) must be raised below and briefed specificallyor it’s waived.
Key Statutes & Cases
- § 48.21(1), Fla. Stat. Required contents of return of service (facial validity).
- § 48.081(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. Corporate service; hierarchy applies only if registered agent cannot be served.
- § 48.091(3), Fla. Stat. Service on a representative of the registered agent at the registered office.
- Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015) Facial-validity analysis begins and ends with § 48.21(1).
- KMG Props., LLC v. Owl Constr., LLC, 393 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) Burden-shifting; service on representative of registered agent; argument-only is insufficient.
- Gibson v. Star Collision & Towing, LLC, 381 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) Distinguishes facial validity from veracity challenges.
For Businesses & Litigators
- Businesses: Keep your registered agent information current and accessible; train front-desk/rep staff at the registered office about how to handle process.
- Plaintiff’s counsel/process servers: Draft returns that explicitly state the representative capacity when serving at the registered office; cite the right subsections.
- Defense counsel: If challenging service, gather evidence (affidavits from the agent, staff rosters, security logs). Don’t rely on § 48.081(3) when the record shows service under § 48.091(3).
Related Boltz Legal Guides
- What to Expect During a Lawsuit
- Ways Insurance Companies Try to Avoid Paying
- Some Homeowners Insurance Laws You Need to Know
Bottom Line
A return that ticks all four boxes of § 48.21(1) is facially valid; service on a representative of the registered agent is proper under § 48.091(3). The defendant then bears a heavy evidentiary burden to rebut service without evidence, the default stands.
Today’s Insight
“Details create the big picture.”
— Sanford I. Weill
In service-of-process fights, four statutory details on the return can decide the whole case.