<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Goudy Old Style";
panose-1:2 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">Does anyone know of any quick case law to support issuing a summons to an Unknown Occupant/John Doe in an eviction context? I.e., something in the case law or Rules to
support not naming a Defendant, when their name isn’t known?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">A client in Alachua is dealing with a squatter, and sent it to our firm as an unlawful detainer eviction. As we do in all other counties, we filed naming the Defendant
as “Unknown Occupant” since the property doesn’t know who is inside.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">While all other counties have processed our past cases against “Unknown Occupant” without issue, the Alachua clerk refused to issue a summons. They stated that they could
only issue a summons against a named person. I talked to the clerk, then the clerk’s supervisor, and then the General Counsel for the Clerk. All gave me the same answer, that it was against the law to issue a summons against an unnamed party.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">When I said that every other county issued eviction summons against “Unknown Occupant” without any pushback, the General Counsel said that every other county was in violation
of the law and civil procedure. When I asked how my client is supposed to file against a squatter they don’t know the General Counsel said that all other unlawful detainers they filed listed a named person, and I was the first person to ever bring this issue
up to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">The General Counsel also sent me their memo on Unknown Persons summonses, which is below. It cites one case. I Shephardized their case and it is still good law, however
it was a case for money damages. My first thought was that the eviction for possession only is technically just against the premises, not the actual person, so that could be a way to distinguish. I haven’t been able to find anything exactly on point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">SUMMONSES ON UNKNOWN PERSONS PROCEDURE</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Effective January 15, 2009. the Clerk’s Office established its policy of not issuing summonses on and unknown persons. This is based on research determining the Clerk’s Office has
no authority to issue a summons on an unknown person or a John/Jane Doe as a John Doe complaint does not commence an action against the real party. See
<u>Grantham v. Blount, Inc.</u>, <span style="color:black">683 So.2d 538 (2d DCA 1996)</span>, (“<span style="color:black">we choose to treat a John Doe complaint in the same manner we treat a complaint that contains a substantially incorrect identification
of the defendant and hold that it does not commence an action against the real party”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">Thanks in advance for the help,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif">Matt<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Siegel, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Countryside Colonial Center<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2753 SR 580, Suite 209<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearwater, FL 33761-3351<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">P 727-726-1900<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">F 727-726-7440<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:matt@mgfdlaw.com"><span style="color:windowtext">matt@mgfdlaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Primary Eservice: <u><a href="mailto:eservice@mgfdlaw.com"><span style="color:windowtext">eservice@mgfdlaw.com</span></a></u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>