may dispense with the filing of a postal receipt if a substituted service statute is invoked on the ground that the defendant is evading service. Chapman, 750 So.2d at 143. This does not mean Warner need not bother with certified mail to Wise’s address; rather, “[t]he failure to comply with the statutory requirements has been excused when the record shows that the party to be served is deliberately refusing to accept delivery.” Woodworth v. Smith, 773 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing where the trial court denied the motion to quash service though defendant had actual notice based on regular mail); see also Jennings v. Montenegro, 792 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that “the failure of delivery of service must be attributable to the defendant”); Wyatt, 649 So.2d at 907 (<HOLDING>). The holding in Smith v. Leaman, 826 So.2d
holding that service to defendants business address resulted in total failure to serve process rather than mere technical defect and thus could not be cured by rule 415f holding that the court cannot conclude that failure of service resulted from defendants rejection of delivery where letters sent to defendant were returned stating unclaimed and not at this address holding notice of impending tax sale of property was not reasonably calculated to reach property owner when notice sent via certified letter by state was returned unclaimed and state did not take additional reasonable steps to ensure notice was provided holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail holding dismissal for want of prosecution improper where notice of hearing was mailed to an address that was different from the most recent filings and the record and envelopes were returned undeliverable and noting that when the notice was returned undeliverable court personnel should have reexamined the file to determine if there was evidence of a more recent address