WYMAN v. NEWHOUSE Case Brief
Summary of WYMAN v. NEWHOUSE
Facts: Wyman (P) obtained jurisdiction by fraudulently inducing Newhouse (D) to come to Florida and then serving Newhouse (D) with process Newhouse (D) collaterally attacked the enforcement of the resulting default judgment.
Issue: Is service invalid when procured through fraudulent means?
Rule: Jurisdiction is improper when service is procured by fraudulent means.
Analysis: Because service was improper, Newhouse (D) was allowed to collaterally attach the judgment. However, the state must have a statute making the jurisdiction improper when service was fraudulently procured, otherwise Newhouse (D) would not have been successful in his attack and he would have had to make a special appearance in the original action to contest Florida’s jurisdiction.