Woide v. Fannie Mae

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHARLES WOIDE AND SUSANNAH WOIDE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D12-4276 FANNIE MAE, ETC., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 12, 2013 Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Judge. Herbert S. Zischkau III, Deltona, Appellant. for Wm. David Newman, Jr., of Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellants, Charles and Susannah Woide, timely appeal a non-final order denying their motion to quash service of process. They argue the summonses with which they were served were defective because neither contained the deputy clerk's signature or the circuit court's official seal as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a). Appellee, Fannie Mae, properly concedes error. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(a); § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011); Ball v. Jones, 65 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 1953) ("When the Rule mandatorily requires that the summons shall be issued by the Clerk , it requires that the Clerk, or his lawfully authorized deputy, sign such summons as a 'testimonial by which the authenticity of the summons is made to appear."'); see also Schofield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 95 So. 3d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ("Service of process must strictly comply with all relevant statutory provisions."). Accordingly, because the summonses failed to strictly comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(a), we reverse the order of the trial court. REVERSED and REMANDED. LAWSON, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.