Summary
holding that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant where she failed to follow an obvious lead to the defendant's whereabouts by inquiring of the defendant's known attorney
Summary of this case from Wolfe v. StevensOpinion
No. 86-926.
October 7, 1986.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, David L. Levy, J.
Marc Hauser, Bay Harbor, for appellant.
Max A. Goldfarb, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The failure of the plaintiff to follow an obvious lead to the defendant's whereabouts, that is, to make inquiry of the defendant's known attorney, compels us to conclude, unlike the trial court, that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant and was thus not entitled to assert that the defendant was concealing her whereabouts or was no longer a resident of Florida so as to trigger the operation of the "substituted service on non-resident motor vehicle owner" statute, Section 48.171, Florida Statutes (1985). Knabb v. Morris, 492 So.2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, the order denying the defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment and the final judgment are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.