Improper service by sheriff are they libel ?

[goldhunter_2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? fl

is the sheriff's office libel for improper service ?

The sheriff's proof of service shows it was done to the correct company address and the actual branch manger BUT list her name as a "employee" making it improper service under section 655.0201 The effect was my default was vacated and judgment denied also order to properly service defendant again (same person)

The judge's ruling is based on the word "employee" and states this was improper serviceWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[justalayman]

isn't the branch manager an employee of the company?

 

[latigo]

I don’t know about Florida, but elsewhere the words ”libel” and “liable” are not synonymous.

But I can say with reasonable confidence that ‘sovereign immunity” applies even in the State of Florida.

And it would appear from your post that the only thing “improper” was the return and not the manner of service or the individual served.

Otherwise why would the judge foolishly direct - as you tell us - that the “same person” be re-served rather than the filing of an amended return? Makes no sense.

Moreover, there is no Section 655.0201 of the Florida Statutes. Chapter 655 of Title XXXVIII has to do with “Financial Institutions Generally” and ends with subsection 655.947.

Chapter 48 of Title VI Civil Practice and Procedure covers “Process and Service of Process” and their ain’t no subsection “655.0201” in there either.
____________

Sounds to me as if someone is trying to avoid substantive issues in trying to find a procedural crack to slip through to latch on to a scapegoat.

 

[goldhunter_2]

Justlayman,
yes I agree with you BUT The way the order is worded

"The return in this case states that the process served on a employee of (name excluded for this post) , not an executive officer, director, or business agent as required by statute."





latigo,

Ok I have no excuses for my errors in wording (witch happens more often then I lie to admit) but you still seem to have gotten the meaning intended

By ‘sovereign immunity” commented above are you saying they are not liable for process even though they are required to be bonded for liability ?

Yes I agree that to me it appears that the why the sheriff wrote the the proof of service is all that is improper BUT the judge is considering the service process improper also because it was served on a employee.

I also think there was some confused when you read my original post form what the judge says and what I was saying. legally process of service would be accepted by the branch manger (witch it was) but the point was the sheriff improperly wrote the proof of service as her just being a employee The reason I make this point is because I will have to file service on the same person again and have no way to notify the judge she is the branch manger witch would comply with section 655.0201 witch he referenced in the order

One other factor may be relevant in short this does not fall under section 607 so I am not required to file with registered agent , OCC, and there corporate offices confirmed this earlier

here is a link (I hope)to Florida statute section 655.0201 for reference and section 48 and 49 are civil code

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Zigner]

I'll be that a "Branch Manager" is not an "executive officer, director, or business agent" in this case.

 

[justalayman]

I'll be that a "Branch Manager" is not an "executive officer, director, or business agent" in this case.

bet?

I think you are likely correct as well. A branch manager is generally not any of those officers listed. For legal purposes, she is merely an employee.



goldhunter; that is a huge mistake unknowing people make when trying to sue a business, and specifically a bank. They seem to believe the branch manager is an officer of the company when in reality, they generally aren't.

 

[goldhunter_2]

it could be my mistake I guess but still feel it was correct service . The OCC is who regulates this bank and the corporate office of company both acknowledged that they are required by law to designate the chief financial officer to receive service process

and the judge sited FS 607.0501 then went to say there "no requirements for registered agents"

 

[FlyingRon]

Don't know. Just about every branch of a major bank has a "Vice President" or two in residence.

 

[Tex78704]

it could be my mistake I guess but still feel it was correct service . The OCC is who regulates this bank and the corporate office of company both acknowledged that they are required by law to designate the chief financial officer to receive service process

and the judge sited FS 607.0501 then went to say there "no requirements for registered agents"

How the process server designated the individual served does not affect the actual status of the one being served. In this case the server was correct that the branch manager is an 'employee', as opposed to 'registered agent'. An attorney would have detected the issue with improper service right away and fixed it. What happened here is an example of the risks one takes when representing themself.

The judge is correct that there are no requirements for a registered agent under 655.0201.

655.0201(2) clearly states that a financial institution MAY designate a registered agent. If no such agent is designated, service may be made to any executive officer at its principle place of business.

Only if service cannot be made to either a "registered agent" or "executive officer", would you have the option of invoking 655.0201(3), and possibly serving the branch manager.

So, it was incumbent upon you do have done some research prior to serving the institution to identify who these individuals are, and to serve one of them in the order shown above. You should have been able to give your process server a named individual(s) to serve process to, rather than just send them to the insitution to serve someone.

From what was stated here, you clearly did not follow this procedure, and your service was deemed defective, and now your case is back at square one.

 

[goldhunter_2]

yes I am painfully aware of the risk I am taking by not having a attorney and self reppersating myself , unfortunately I don't have a choice some chance to recover the embezzled funds is better then no chance at this point

by reading the whole order and the judge emphasizing employee I believe I did all correct but regardless and redoing summons to have issued again

thanks for everyones imput

 

[justalayman]

you are claiming the bank embezzled funds? Hell guy, there are regulatory agencies that would jump on this if there was a hint of truth to that accusation. If they found wrong doing, it would make your suit so much easier.

it could be my mistake I guess but still feel it was correct service .

the only time feelings come into play in the court are if the judge is feeling ill. Other than that, the rules are what rules.

and the judge sited FS 607.0501 then went to say there "no requirements for registered agents"

as tex stated; that merely means there is no requirement the bank actually designate a registered agent. That doesn't mean everybody else is available for service.

"The return in this case states that the process served on a employee of (name excluded for this post) , not an executive officer, director, or business agent as required by statute."

so, to conform with the requirements of the rules, you must serve either an executive officer or director since there is no business agent. The branch manager is apparently considered neither an executive officer nor director as well as not being a business agent.

In other words, you have to serve a person within the company that deals with the corporate activities of the bank. A branch manager is not necessarily involved with any corporate decision of the bank and at the bank you are dealing with, apparently they aren't.

 

[Dave1952]

The judge has set aside your default judgment because you did not serve the correct person with the legal papers. You may file again and he encouraged you to do so. I'm guessing that the deputy served the person that you specified. Are you arguing that the deputy did not serve the specified person at the specified address? Why is the Sheriff or his deputy liable for this mess?

Good luck

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Serve all businesses with their registered agent ...