Wu v. Alem

After a facially regular return of service and a default final judgment, the defendant moved to quash service and to vacate the default, arguing solely that he was not the person served. The trial court denied the motion to quash (finding no clear and convincing evidence of non-service and expressly crediting the process server) but vacated the default on excusable neglect grounds. The Third DCA affirmed the denial of the motion to quash and reversed the vacatur, holding that where the asserted excusable neglect rests solely on a claim of non-service, it collapses into the same clear-and-convincing standard, which the defendant failed to meet; the absence of any proffered meritorious defense was independently fatal.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.