.194(1)(a), it is clear that the above doorkeeper was not a "person residing" in Ms. "usual place of abode" for purposes of effecting service. See Schupak v. Sutton Hill Assocs., 710 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("A fortiori, leaving process with an apartment doorman in the apartment lobby is i

(a), it is clear that the above doorkeeper was not a "person residing" in Ms. Kellen's "usual place of abode" for purposes of effecting service. See Schupak v. Sutton Hill Assocs., 710 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("A fortiori, leaving process with an apartment doorman in the apartment lobby is i