ALLSTATE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS TRANSFER INC v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (2023)

Affirmed. See Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[Service] which is regular on its face is presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. Furthermore, a defendant cannot impeach a summons by simply denying service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his denial of service.”) (quoting Lazo v. Bill Swad Leasing Co., 548 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); Morales L. Grp., P.A. v. Rodman, 305 So. 3d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Because [the appellant] did not submit any evidence challenging the facts contained in the return of service, the [appellant] did not meet its burden.”); Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 671 So. 2d 818, 818–19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming “the order of the trial court denying appellants’ respective motions to quash service of process” where “[appellant] sought to attack the service of process with uncorroborated affidavits” and concluding “appellants have not sustained their high burden of demonstrating the invalidity of their service”).

PER CURIAM.