By
A recent Florida appellate decision, later left undisturbed when the Florida Supreme Court declined discretionary review, may draw attention from litigants and businesses involved in cross-border disputes in Florida courts. In Forsun International Group, Inc. v. DRT Holdings, LLC, No. 3D24-0252 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 21, 2026), review was denied, No. SC26-170 (Fla. Apr. 17, 2026). Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court could authorize service of process by email on foreign parties under section 48.197, Florida Statutes.
Although the matter arose in post-judgment proceedings, the decision may be of broader interest to litigants handling commercial disputes, product liability actions, judgment enforcement matters, and other cases involving parties located outside the United States.
The decision also reflects a broader issue increasingly confronting courts: how should traditional service-of-process rules apply in a business environment where parties routinely negotiate, transact, and communicate electronically across borders?
Traditional Challenges in Serving Foreign Parties
Serving a domestic defendant is often straightforward. Serving a foreign party can be considerably more complex.
Depending on the country involved, litigants may need to proceed under the Hague Service Convention, formally known as the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. This treaty provides procedures for transmitting judicial documents through designated governmental authorities in participating countries.
In some matters involving countries in the Americas, service issues may also implicate the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and its Additional Protocol. In other circumstances, litigants may need to proceed through traditional letters rogatory, which are formal requests from one court to a foreign court seeking assistance with service or evidence gathering.
These procedures remain significant and, in many matters, mandatory. They may also involve translation requirements, foreign procedural rules, diplomatic channels, and substantial delays.
The Florida Decision
Based on the published opinion, the plaintiff in Forsun sought authorization to serve foreign parties by email rather than rely exclusively on more traditional international procedures. The foreign parties opposed that request and argued that formal treaty-based service mechanisms should govern.
The Third District upheld the trial court’s authorization of email service under section 48.197, Florida Statutes, which addresses service on persons outside Florida, including parties located outside the United States.
While every case depends on its specific facts, the decision appears to recognize that court-authorized email service may be available in some circumstances where the proposed method is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is not prohibited by an applicable international agreement.
The Florida Supreme Court later declined discretionary review. That procedural ruling leaves the appellate decision in place, although a denial of discretionary review should not necessarily be read as endorsement of all reasoning in the underlying opinion.
Why Section 48.197 Matters
Section 48.197 is notable because it forms part of Florida’s statutory framework for service on parties located beyond the state and, in some circumstances, beyond the United States.
When a defendant lacks a Florida registered agent or physical presence in the state, ordinary in-state service procedures may be unavailable or impractical. As a result, disputes often arise regarding what methods of service are legally sufficient, whether treaty obligations apply, and whether a proposed method satisfies due process.
Litigants may cite Forsun in future cases when arguing that section 48.197 permits practical alternatives in appropriate circumstances rather than imposing a rigid sequence of service methods in every matter.
Due Process Remains Central
The decision should not be read as creating automatic email service in all cases involving foreign defendants.
Courts remain guided by due process principles requiring notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise a defendant of the action and provide an opportunity to respond.
For that reason, parties seeking alternative service may still need to present evidence that the proposed email address is reliable and genuinely connected to the defendant. Relevant considerations may include:
- Prior business communications using the address
- Contract documents listing the address
- Public-facing company contact information
- Recent correspondence relating to the dispute
- Other evidence suggesting the account is active and monitored
Potential Impact on Florida Litigation
The decision may be particularly relevant in several recurring litigation settings:
I. Product Liability and Consumer Cases
Many products sold in the United States are designed or manufactured abroad, while affiliated domestic entities handle importation, marketing, distribution, or retail sales.
In some cases, discovery may later focus attention on a foreign manufacturer or parent company. When that occurs, service on the foreign entity can become a threshold procedural issue. Litigants may look to Forsun when seeking alternative methods of notice where legally appropriate.
II. Commercial Disputes
Cross-border contract disputes, fraud claims, vendor conflicts, and business tort actions often involve foreign companies that maintain ongoing electronic communications but limited physical presence in Florida.
The decision may be cited where parties contend that practical service methods should be considered when traditional procedures would cause substantial delay.
III. Judgment Enforcement Matters
Because Forsun arose in the post-judgment context, the decision may also be relevant in proceedings involving foreign debtors or affiliated entities located overseas.
Considerations for Foreign Businesses
Foreign companies doing business in Florida—whether directly or through domestic affiliates—may wish to review internal procedures for receiving and responding to legal notices.
Practical considerations may include:
- Monitoring company email accounts used in business operations
- Maintaining procedures for escalating legal correspondence
- Evaluating domestic service-agent options where appropriate
- Keeping corporate roles among affiliated entities clearly documented
- Consulting counsel promptly when legal papers are received electronically
Ignoring electronically transmitted legal documents based on the assumption that only formal treaty service is effective could create avoidable risk.
A Developing Area to Watch
Service on foreign parties remains highly fact-specific and often turns on the language of applicable treaties, statutes, and constitutional notice requirements. For that reason, Forsun should be understood as one recent appellate decision addressing a recurring modern issue rather than a universal rule applicable to every international dispute.
As international commerce continues to expand, courts are likely to confront additional requests for alternative service methods that reflect how parties actually communicate in today’s marketplace.
Conclusion
The Forsun decision may be of interest to businesses and litigants navigating cross-border disputes in Florida. While traditional treaty procedures such as the Hague Service Convention remain central in many matters, Florida courts may increasingly be asked to evaluate alternative methods of service that are practical, effective, and consistent with due process.
Reprinted with permission from the May 13, 2026 edition of the Daily Business Review © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
