Britt 'K. Lyle (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s order- dehying his motion to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure case. Appellant argues that the trial court should have held an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether Penny-Mac Holdings, LLC, conducted a diligent search and inquiry in attempting to serve him personally with a verified complaint for residential foreclosure. Based on the record before us, which contains the motions and supporting affidavits filed by both parties, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand this case for an- evidentiary hearing. See Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 922 So.2d 340, 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that “[t]he party invoking the court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the validity of service of process” and that “[t]he constructive service statutes require strict compliance”); Talton v. CU Members Mortg., 126 So.3d 446, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Where the allegations of the motion to quash service of *628 process, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, then the trial court errs in denying the motion without first affording the movant an evidentiary hearing.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.