02 Mar Constructive Service in Florida Family Cases
Summary
Florida law requires a sworn affidavit documenting genuine, multifaceted efforts to locate an absent party before constructive service by publication is permitted under Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes. Courts strictly scrutinize those efforts, and any deficiency in the diligent search renders the service void, potentially nullifying any judgment entered in the proceeding.
When a party to a Florida family law proceeding cannot be located for personal service of process, the law provides an alternative known as constructive service, commonly called service by publication. However, the availability of constructive service is not automatic. Before a court in Miami-Dade County or anywhere else in Florida will permit service by publication, the party seeking it must first demonstrate that a diligent search and inquiry has been conducted to locate the absent party. This threshold requirement, rooted in both statute and constitutional due process, is the subject of significant judicial scrutiny and forms the foundation of this article.
The concept of diligent search and inquiry under Florida law governs every stage of the constructive service process, from the contents of the sworn affidavit filed with the court to the depth of the investigative efforts documented therein. Florida courts have consistently held that constructive service statutes must be strictly construed, meaning that any deficiency in the search or in the affidavit can result in the service being declared void, exposing the petitioning party to judgment reversal or dismissal. For family law practitioners and their clients in Miami and throughout South Florida, understanding these requirements is therefore essential to the validity of any proceeding where a respondent cannot be found.
This article examines the statutory framework established by Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes, the judicial interpretation of what constitutes a sufficient diligent search, the procedural steps required to satisfy the standard, and the consequences of failing to meet those requirements. Drawing on leading Florida cases including McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770 (1926), Floyd v. Fannie Mae, 704 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), Redfield Investments v. Village of Pinecrest, 990 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and others, the discussion that follows provides a comprehensive guide for any attorney or litigant navigating the constructive service landscape in Florida.
The Statutory Framework for Diligent Search and Inquiry in Florida Constructive Service
Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes: The Governing Authority
The foundational statutory authority for constructive service in Florida is found in Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes. This chapter establishes the procedural prerequisites that must be satisfied before a court may authorize service by publication. Specifically, Fla. Stat. Section 49.031 makes clear that as a condition precedent to constructive service, the plaintiff or petitioner must file a sworn statement or affidavit with the court establishing, among other things, that diligent search and inquiry have been made. This sworn statement may be included within a verified pleading or submitted as a standalone affidavit, but it must be on file before publication may proceed.
Section 49.031 does not operate in isolation. Rather, it works in conjunction with Fla. Stat. Sections 49.041 and 49.051, which set forth the specific content requirements for the sworn statement depending on whether the person sought is a natural individual or a corporation. Together, these three provisions establish the minimum threshold that every petitioner must meet before a Florida court will permit constructive service. Courts in Miami-Dade County, as elsewhere in Florida, apply these statutes as written, and any deviation from the statutory requirements is treated as a jurisdictional defect that may void the resulting service.
Section 49.041: Requirements for Service on Natural Persons
For proceedings in which the party to be served is a natural person, Fla. Stat. Section 49.041 dictates the specific contents that the sworn statement must include. First and foremost, the statement must contain a declaration that a diligent search and inquiry have been made to discover the name and residence of the person to be served, and it must specify whatever information is actually known to the affiant. This requirement reflects the legislature’s intent to ensure that the affiant is not simply asserting conclusions but is instead providing the court with factual detail sufficient to allow for judicial review.
Beyond the search declaration, Section 49.041 further requires the affiant to state whether the person to be served is over or under the age of eighteen, or whether the age is unknown. Additionally, the sworn statement must characterize the defendant’s residency in one of three ways recognized by the statute: the residence is unknown to the affiant; the defendant is known to reside in another state or country, with that location stated if ascertainable; or the defendant is known to reside within Florida, but has been absent for more than sixty days prior to the filing of the action, is concealing himself or herself to avoid service of process, or there is no person in the state upon whom service of process would bind the defendant.
The inclusion of each of these elements is not optional. Florida courts have consistently held that a sworn statement which omits the required detail, or which provides only conclusory language rather than specific facts, does not satisfy Section 49.041 and therefore does not support constructive service. The statute’s requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a deficient affidavit goes to the validity of the court’s power to act, not merely to procedural regularity.
Section 49.051: Requirements for Service on Corporations
When the party to be served is a corporation, Fla. Stat. Section 49.051 governs the content of the required sworn statement. Under that provision, the affiant must demonstrate diligent efforts to ascertain the corporation’s true name, its domicile, its principal place of business, and its legal status, including whether it is a domestic, foreign, or dissolved entity. Furthermore, the affiant must show that efforts were made to identify and locate the corporation’s officers, directors, or registered agents upon whom service of process would be legally effective, and that such individuals are either absent from Florida, cannot be located within the state, are concealing themselves to avoid service, or their whereabouts are unknown.
Section 49.051 reflects the same philosophy as Section 49.041, namely that constructive service is a remedy of last resort that may only be employed after genuine investigative efforts have been made. The section-specific requirements for corporate defendants also underscore the breadth of inquiry expected under Florida law. It is not enough to simply search for the individual officer; the petitioner must also investigate the corporate entity itself, its registration status, and the whereabouts of all potential agents for service.
Judicial Interpretation of Diligent Search and Inquiry Under Florida Law
The Foundational Standard: Honest and Conscientious Efforts
The seminal statement of the diligent search standard in Florida comes from the Florida Supreme Court’s 1926 decision in McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770 (1926). In that case, the Court articulated the governing test: the plaintiff must exert an honest and conscientious effort, appropriate to the circumstances, to ascertain the defendant’s whereabouts, and must reasonably employ the knowledge at their command. This formulation has endured for nearly a century and continues to frame judicial analysis of constructive service affidavits throughout Florida, including in Miami-Dade family law proceedings.
The McDaniel standard is notable for what it does and does not demand. On one hand, it does not require certainty or guarantee of success. A plaintiff is not expected to exhaust every conceivable avenue of investigation or to have located the defendant through other means before resorting to constructive service. On the other hand, the standard is not satisfied by a perfunctory or superficial inquiry. Courts will look past the face of the affidavit to assess whether the investigation described therein was genuinely diligent and appropriately tailored to the circumstances of the case.
Reasonable Efforts: What Florida Courts Require
Florida courts have elaborated extensively on the types of investigative steps that qualify as reasonable efforts under the diligent search standard. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Floyd v. Fannie Mae, 704 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), illustrates both what is required and what is insufficient. In that case, the petitioner had conducted certain database searches but had failed to visit the subject property, speak with neighboring residents, or make other basic inquiries that were available and likely to yield useful information. The court held that these omissions rendered the search inadequate, notwithstanding the electronic searches that had been performed.
Floyd v. Fannie Mae makes clear that a diligent search must be multifaceted and cannot rely exclusively on any single method. Courts expect petitioners to consult public records repositories, including property tax records, probate records, and vital statistics databases. They also expect physical investigative steps, such as visiting the last known address of the absent party, speaking with neighbors, interviewing relatives and coworkers, and checking with the post office or utility companies if those avenues are practicable. In Miami-Dade County, where many family law cases involve parties with international connections, the inquiry may also need to extend to consular offices or foreign public records depending on what is known about the absent party’s background.
The Third District Court of Appeal reinforced this expectation in Redfield Investments, A.V.V. v. Village of Pinecrest, 990 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), a decision of particular relevance to South Florida practitioners. In that case, the petitioner had failed to contact a foreign consulate that was known to be a likely source of information about the absent party. Because the petitioner had not pursued what the court characterized as the most obvious and accessible avenue of inquiry, the constructive service was invalidated. The decision sends a clear message to Miami-area litigants: the diligent search must follow the specific facts of the case, and readily available sources of information must be investigated.
Similarly, in Mayo v. Mayo, 344 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the court examined the adequacy of the efforts made to locate a spouse in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The Mayo court emphasized that the affiant must demonstrate, through specific facts, that each reasonably available source of information was consulted. Generic assertions or boilerplate language, even when included in a sworn statement, do not satisfy this requirement. The court’s focus on factual specificity aligns with the statutory language in Sections 49.031 and 49.041, which require the affiant to specify the information actually known.
Strict Construction: Why Courts Scrutinize Constructive Service Affidavits
Florida courts apply a doctrine of strict construction to Chapter 49’s requirements. This means that the statutes governing constructive service are interpreted narrowly and in favor of the absent party, consistent with the constitutional imperative that no person shall be deprived of their rights without adequate notice. As the Third District held in McAlice v. Kirsch, 368 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the constructive service statutes renders the resulting service void, not merely voidable. This distinction is significant because a void service, unlike a voidable one, cannot be ratified or cured by subsequent conduct and may be challenged at any time.
The practical consequence of strict construction is that courts do not give benefit of the doubt to petitioners who provide incomplete or ambiguous affidavits. In Redfield Investments, for example, the court made clear that even a facially adequate affidavit may be insufficient if the underlying investigation was deficient. A court examining a constructive service affidavit in a Miami-Dade family law case will assess not only whether the required elements are present on the face of the document but also whether the described efforts were genuinely calculated to locate the absent party.
The Southeast & Associates, Inc. v. Fox Run Homeowners Association, Inc., 704 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) decision further illustrates the practical application of strict construction. The court in Southeast & Associates reaffirmed that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the diligent search requirement and that the affidavit must convey the extent of the efforts with sufficient particularity to allow the court to assess adequacy. Conclusory assertions, such as a bare statement that a diligent search was made, without any factual detail, are categorically insufficient.
The Role of the Affidavit in Establishing Diligent Search
The sworn statement or affidavit occupies a central position in the constructive service framework because it serves as the evidentiary foundation for the court’s authorization of publication. Under Fla. Stat. Section 49.031, the affidavit must be on file before any constructive service may proceed, and it must contain the factual detail required by Sections 49.041 or 49.051, as applicable. Practitioners in Miami-Dade family law proceedings should approach the drafting of this affidavit with the same rigor they would apply to any sworn testimonial document.
Courts reviewing diligent search affidavits will look for evidence of specific investigative steps, the dates on which those steps were taken, the results obtained from each inquiry, and the name or identity of the persons contacted. In Martins v. Oaks Master Property Owners Association, Inc., 159 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), the Third District emphasized that the affidavit’s function is not merely to satisfy a procedural checkbox but to enable the court to independently evaluate whether the search was reasonable under the circumstances. The Martins court’s analysis underscores that judicial oversight of constructive service is genuine and ongoing, not perfunctory.
Moreover, the affidavit must reflect the knowledge actually available to the affiant at the time the search was conducted. If the petitioner possesses information that suggests a particular avenue of inquiry, the affidavit must demonstrate that the avenue was explored. For example, if a party in a Miami family law case knows that the absent spouse was employed by a specific company, the affidavit should reflect that the employer was contacted in an attempt to obtain a current address. Failure to follow through on known leads is precisely the kind of deficiency that courts identify as fatal to constructive service.
Specific Investigative Steps That Satisfy the Diligent Search Standard
Public Records and Database Searches
Among the investigative steps most commonly associated with a diligent search in Florida, public records inquiries occupy a foundational role. As recognized in Floyd v. Fannie Mae, courts expect petitioners to consult a broad range of publicly available databases before concluding that a party cannot be located. In the context of Florida family law, this typically includes a review of property appraiser records with the relevant county, including Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser records when applicable; voter registration databases; Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles records; probate court records; and Social Security Administration locator services.
In addition to these foundational databases, courts expect petitioners to access court filing systems and clerk of court records, which may reflect filings by or against the absent party that indicate a current address. In Miami-Dade County, the Clerk of Courts maintains a publicly accessible online docket that can often reveal recent filings, including addresses disclosed in prior proceedings. A practitioner who fails to check these records, when they are readily available and potentially informative, risks having the diligent search found inadequate.
Physical Investigation: Visiting Last Known Addresses
Beyond electronic and database searches, Florida courts expect that a petitioner pursuing constructive service will conduct physical investigation as circumstances warrant. The Floyd v. Fannie Mae court specifically criticized the petitioner’s failure to visit the subject property, and subsequent decisions have similarly identified in-person inquiry as a component of a reasonably diligent search. For Miami-Dade family law cases, this typically means that a process server or investigator should visit the absent party’s last known address, attempt personal contact, and speak with any available neighbors, building managers, or other individuals who might have current contact information.
Physical investigation also encompasses contact with post offices for mail forwarding information, utility companies that may have current service addresses on file, and, where applicable, places of worship, schools attended by minor children, or other community institutions that may know the absent party’s whereabouts. The breadth of physical investigation required is necessarily proportional to what the petitioner knows about the absent party. A search conducted with the knowledge that a party frequently visited a particular location must include an inquiry at that location; a failure to do so will be viewed as evidence that the search was not truly diligent.
Interviewing Relatives, Neighbors, and Associates
Personal interviews with individuals likely to know the absent party’s whereabouts are another expected component of a diligent search. The Mayo v. Mayo decision makes clear that the affiant must be able to demonstrate that reasonably available human sources of information were consulted. In the family law context, this commonly means attempting to interview the absent party’s relatives, former neighbors, employers, coworkers, and close associates. In Miami, where extended family networks are often locally concentrated, failure to interview known family members of the absent party may be viewed as a significant gap in the search.
Practitioners should document these interviews carefully. The affidavit should reflect not only that such interviews were attempted but also the identity of the individuals contacted, the date and method of contact, and what information, if any, was obtained. Courts reviewing the adequacy of the diligent search will look for this level of detail as an indicator that the petitioner genuinely employed the knowledge at their command in accordance with the McDaniel standard.
International Inquiries in Miami-Dade Family Law Cases
Given Miami-Dade County’s status as a gateway city with strong international connections, family law cases frequently involve parties who may have relocated outside the United States or who have ties to foreign countries. In these circumstances, the diligent search obligation extends beyond domestic investigative steps. The Redfield Investments decision, which arose in Miami-Dade County and which expressly criticized the petitioner’s failure to contact a foreign consulate, stands as a direct warning to South Florida practitioners that the diligent search must follow the facts wherever they lead.
When there is reason to believe that an absent party may be in a foreign country, the search must include, at minimum, contact with the relevant consular office or embassy, inquiry through any international address databases that are reasonably accessible, and outreach to any known foreign family members or associates. Attorneys handling constructive service matters in Miami family law cases should be particularly attentive to this dimension of the inquiry, as the Third District Court of Appeal has specifically addressed international search obligations in a factual context arising from this jurisdiction.
Consequences of Failure to Conduct a Legally Sufficient Diligent Search
Void Service and Its Implications for Florida Family Law Proceedings
The consequences of a deficient diligent search are severe and extend beyond procedural inconvenience. As established in McAlice v. Kirsch, constructive service that does not comply with the statutory requirements is void rather than merely voidable. A void service confers no jurisdiction upon the court over the absent party, and any judgment rendered against that party on the basis of void service is itself subject to being vacated at any time, even after it has been entered. In a Florida family law case, this could mean that a final judgment of dissolution, a child support order, or a parenting plan entered after defective constructive service has no legal effect and cannot be enforced.
This consequence is particularly significant in the context of Miami-Dade family law proceedings, where delays caused by jurisdictional defects can be costly for clients who depend on timely resolution of their domestic matters. A court that discovers a deficient constructive service affidavit may dismiss the action without prejudice, require the petitioner to recommence the publication process from the beginning, or, in some instances, vacate a judgment that has already been entered. For these reasons, it is essential that the diligent search be conducted thoroughly and documented with care before the publication process is initiated.
Conclusory Affidavits and the Risk of Dismissal
One of the most common errors practitioners make in constructive service proceedings is the submission of a conclusory affidavit. In Redfield Investments, the court emphasized that an affidavit which merely recites that a diligent search was made, without providing the factual detail that allows the court to assess the adequacy of that search, is insufficient. The court’s reasoning is consistent with the statutory text of Section 49.041, which requires the affiant to specify the information known about the defendant’s residence and the steps taken to discover that information.
The Deiao v. Ward, 2021 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 10049 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2021) decision reinforces this principle at the trial court level, confirming that circuit courts in Florida continue to actively scrutinize constructive service affidavits for conclusory language. Even when an affidavit recites the statutory language of Sections 49.031 and 49.041, a court may find it insufficient if the recitation is not supported by specific factual averments describing the individual steps taken during the search. Practitioners in Miami-Dade County should treat each affidavit as a factual narrative of the investigation, not a form document.
Jurisdictional Defects and the Right to Challenge Service
Because strict compliance with Chapter 49 is jurisdictional in nature, an absent party who was purportedly served by publication retains the right to challenge the adequacy of the constructive service at any point in the proceedings. Accordingly, even if a judgment has been entered against an absent party, that party may later file a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground that the constructive service was defective due to a legally insufficient diligent search. Courts will review such a challenge de novo, assessing the adequacy of the search based on the record that existed at the time service was purported to have been made.
In the Miami-Dade family law context, challenges to constructive service often arise after a default final judgment has been entered. The returning party, upon learning of the judgment, may seek to vacate it on the ground that the diligent search was inadequate. If the court agrees, the case must be reopened and commenced anew, with all the attendant delay and expense. This risk underscores the critical importance of conducting and documenting a thorough diligent search at the outset of any constructive service proceeding.
Practical Guidance for Conducting a Diligent Search in Florida Family Law Cases
Developing a Systematic Investigation Protocol
Given the demanding requirements of Florida’s constructive service statutes and the judicial decisions interpreting them, family law attorneys in Miami and throughout South Florida should develop a systematic protocol for conducting diligent searches. Such a protocol should begin with a thorough intake of all information known to the client about the absent party, including prior addresses, employment history, known family members, vehicle registration information, educational background, and any foreign ties or travel patterns. This baseline information serves as the starting point for identifying the specific investigative avenues that must be pursued.
Once baseline information has been gathered, the investigation should proceed through a documented series of steps that cover each of the categories identified in the case law: public records searches across all relevant databases; physical visits to last known addresses; interviews with neighbors, relatives, and associates; contact with employers, former employers, and relevant professional licensing boards; and, when international connections exist, outreach to appropriate foreign sources of information. Each step should be recorded contemporaneously, with dates, methods of contact, and results noted in writing so that the affidavit can be prepared from accurate, detailed records.
Documenting the Search for a Legally Sufficient Affidavit
The sworn statement required by Fla. Stat. Section 49.031 must ultimately reflect the investigation in a way that satisfies the court’s scrutiny. As taught by the Southeast & Associates and Redfield Investments decisions, the affidavit should read as a factual account of the search rather than a recitation of statutory language. Each category of effort should be addressed: what sources were consulted, when, how, and what result was obtained. Where a particular avenue was not pursued because it was genuinely inapplicable or unavailable, the affidavit should note this and explain why the avenue was not productive or accessible.
Practitioners in Miami-Dade County family law cases should also consider including as attachments to the affidavit any documentary evidence of the search, such as printouts of online database searches, written correspondence to agencies or individuals, or process server returns reflecting unsuccessful personal service attempts. While Florida law does not expressly require such attachments, their inclusion strengthens the affidavit and makes it more difficult for a challenging party or a reviewing court to question the adequacy of the search. Moreover, a well-documented affidavit reduces the risk of an adverse ruling that forces the practitioner to repeat the publication process.
Timing and Ongoing Obligations
It is worth noting that the diligent search obligation is not fully discharged at the moment the affidavit is filed. Under Florida law, if new information comes to light after the filing of the constructive service affidavit but before the conclusion of the publication period, the petitioner may be obligated to pursue that information and, if it leads to the discovery of the absent party’s location, to abandon constructive service and attempt personal service. Allowing constructive service to proceed when the petitioner has actual knowledge of the party’s whereabouts would violate both the statutory framework and the due process principles that underlie Chapter 49.
In practice, this means that attorneys handling constructive service in Miami-Dade family law cases should instruct their clients to continue monitoring available sources of information throughout the publication period and to notify counsel immediately if the absent party makes contact or if their location becomes known through any means. Maintaining an open channel of communication with the client during this period is not merely good practice; it is an ethical and legal obligation that ensures the constructive service process remains valid through its conclusion.
Conclusion
The diligent search and inquiry requirement under Florida law for constructive service is a demanding standard that reflects the fundamental due process principle that no party should be deprived of their rights without genuine notice. Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes establishes the procedural prerequisites, while decades of Florida case law, from McDaniel v. McElvy through Martins v. Oaks Master Property Owners Association and beyond, have given substantive content to what those prerequisites actually require in practice.
For family law practitioners in Miami and throughout South Florida, the diligent search is far more than a formality. It is a jurisdictional prerequisite whose inadequacy can void service, nullify judgments, and expose clients to the delays and costs of restarting proceedings. A sufficiently diligent search is one that is honest, conscientious, multifaceted, and documented with the factual specificity that Florida courts demand. By approaching the constructive service process with the rigor that the statute and case law require, practitioners can protect their clients’ cases and ensure that the resulting service, and any judgment entered upon it, will withstand judicial scrutiny.
TLDR: Under Florida law, a diligent search and inquiry for constructive service requires a sworn affidavit under Fla. Stat. Sections 49.031, 49.041, and 49.051 that documents honest, multifaceted, and specific investigative efforts to locate the absent party, including public records searches, physical visits to last known addresses, and interviews with relatives and associates. Florida courts strictly construe these requirements, and any deficiency renders the service void, potentially nullifying any judgment entered in the proceeding.
What is constructive service by publication under Florida law?
Constructive service by publication is a method of serving process on a party who cannot be located for personal service. It is authorized by Chapter 49 of the Florida Statutes and permits a court to proceed with a case after a notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation, provided that the petitioner has first demonstrated a legally sufficient diligent search and inquiry.
What does a diligent search and inquiry affidavit need to include under Fla. Stat. Section 49.041?
For service on a natural person, the affidavit must declare that a diligent search was conducted, identify all information known about the defendant’s residence, state whether the defendant is over or under eighteen years of age, and characterize the defendant’s residency as either unknown, in another state or country, or in Florida but absent for over sixty days or concealing themselves to avoid service.
What happens if the diligent search affidavit is insufficient?
Florida courts, applying strict construction, will declare the resulting constructive service void rather than merely voidable. A void service deprives the court of jurisdiction over the absent party, and any judgment entered on the basis of that service may be vacated at any time, as established by McAlice v. Kirsch, 368 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and affirmed in subsequent decisions.
Does a diligent search require visiting the defendant’s last known address?
Yes. Florida courts have consistently required physical investigative steps as part of a diligent search. In Floyd v. Fannie Mae, 704 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court held that the petitioner’s failure to visit the subject property and speak with neighbors rendered the search inadequate, even though certain database searches had been performed.
Are international inquiries required as part of a diligent search in Miami family law cases?
When the facts of a case suggest that an absent party may have connections to a foreign country, yes. The Third District Court of Appeal in Redfield Investments v. Village of Pinecrest, 990 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), invalidated constructive service in a Miami-Dade case because the petitioner had failed to contact a foreign consulate that was a readily available and likely source of relevant information.
What is the legal standard for evaluating a diligent search in Florida?
The standard, established by the Florida Supreme Court in McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770 (1926), is whether the petitioner exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances, reasonably employing the knowledge at their command. This test focuses on the quality and breadth of the effort, not on whether the absent party was ultimately located.
Can a conclusory affidavit satisfy the diligent search requirement?
No. Florida courts uniformly hold that a bare recitation of statutory language, without specific factual detail describing the investigative steps taken, does not satisfy the diligent search requirement. Courts in Redfield Investments v. Village of Pinecrest and Deiao v. Ward, 2021 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 10049, have specifically rejected conclusory affidavits as insufficient.
How does strict construction apply to Florida constructive service statutes?
Strict construction means that Chapter 49’s requirements are interpreted narrowly and in favor of the absent party. Any deviation from the statutory requirements, whether in the content of the affidavit or in the adequacy of the underlying search, is treated as a jurisdictional defect. As held in McAlice v. Kirsch, this renders the service void, not merely subject to correction.
Contact the Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC
If you are involved in a Florida family law matter in Miami-Dade, Broward, or elsewhere in South Florida, and you need guidance regarding constructive service, service by publication, or any related family law issue, the Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC is available to assist you. Attorney Jeffrey Alan Aenlle concentrates his practice exclusively in Florida family law and has the knowledge and experience to guide clients through every stage of family law proceedings, including the demanding procedural requirements governing constructive service.
