Service of Process

The real purpose of the service of summons is to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff. Klosenski v. Flaherty, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 767; State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 1940, 142 Fla. 496, 195 So. 145; Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n. v. Hollingsworth, 1938, 135 Fla. 322, 185 So. 431 and 25 Fla.Jur., Process, s 3. The major purpose of the constitutional provision which guarantees ‘due process' is to make certain that when a person is sued he has notice of the suit and an opportunity to defend. ''State ex rel. Weber v. Register'', Fla.1953, Case::67 So.2d 619.

"It is generally held that when a summons is offered to someone, he cannot avoid service by refusing physically to accept the summons if he is informed that service of process is being attempted." "The rule means that a person within the jurisdiction has an obligation to accept service of process when service is attempted reasonably."

Appellant concedes that delivery does not require that the copy of summons and complaint be placed in the defendant's hand, nor, for that matter, that the defendant be even physically touched with the suit papers (although this latter ceremony may at one time have been thought the traditional means to effect personal service. See Roth v. W. T. Cowan, Inc., U.S.D.C.E.D.N.Y.1951, Case::97 F.Supp. 675).

Case::Haney v. Olin Corp., 245 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)

“[T]he issuance and service of process is indispensable to the jurisdiction of the Court, even though the Court may have jurisdiction of the subject matter.” ''Bussey v. Legislative Auditing Comm. of Legislature'', Case::298 So. 2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). “A summons properly issued and served is the method by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant.” Seymour v. Panchita Inv., Inc., Case::28 So.3d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).