007) (emphasis added). It is well settled that "[s]tatutes governing service of process should be strictly construed." E.g., York Commc'ns, Inc. v. Furst Group, Inc., 724 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In construing section 48.194(1)(a), it is clear that the above doorkeeper was not a "person residing" in

007) (emphasis added). It is well settled that "[s]tatutes governing service of process should be strictly construed." E.g., York Commc'ns, Inc. v. Furst Group, Inc., 724 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA :999). In construing section 48.194(1)(a), it is clear that the above doorkeeper was not a "person residing" in