MILTON GERARD, APPELLANT,
v.
PISCES SALES & MARKETING, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a breach of promissory note action for lack of personal jurisdiction over a Hawaiian corporation defendant. The court held that the defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to subject it to the state's jurisdiction, as the note was executed elsewhere, payment was not due in Florida, and the defendant had no business dealings in the state.
The trial court properly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant's minimum contacts with Florida were insufficient under due process requirements, as the note was not executed in Florida, no payments were made or agreed to be made in Florida, and the defendant had no reasonable expectation of dealings in the state.
[1] A Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when the corporation has no minimum contacts with the state, even if the plaintiff resides in Flori…
[2] A contract does not require performance in Florida for purposes of establishing Florida's long-arm jurisdiction if the contract itself is silent on the place of performan…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the demands of due process, regarding a personal action against a foreign corporation, may be met only by such contacts of a defendant corporation with the forum state so as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend the suit in that state”
Establishes the legal standard for personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on the International Shoe minimum contacts test.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Gerard, a Florida resident, sued Pisces Sales & Marketing, Inc., a Hawaiian corporation, for failure to pay a promissory note. The note was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Minimum Contacts cases and more on FLexlaw
GEIGER, DWIGHT L., Associate Judge.
This case involves granting by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County of appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s action for damages arising out of failure by appellee to make any payments on a promissory note given by it to appellant. The motion alleged that the court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction of appellee. This court has jurisdiction under Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
Appellee’s motion to dismiss was accompanied by affidavit filed by the president of appellee stating that appellee is an Hawai ian Corporation doing business in Honolulu, Hawaii, and that the note was not executed in the State of Florida by either party and that the note does not indicate that payment is due in the State of Florida. Further that affidavit states that appellee has not ever, done business or owned real property in the State of Florida. Appellant filed a counter-affidavit which states that appellee failed to pay the note after demand while appellant was a resident of Florida. The note is silent as to where it was executed and where payment is to be made. Appellee’s address appears on the face of the note as Honolulu, Hawaii, and appellant’s address is stated on the face of the note as Atlanta, Georgia.
Section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that a person subjects himself to jurisdiction of the courts of this state if he breaches a contract in this state by failure to perform any acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.
Appellant contends that because of this language the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This argument fails because the contract sued on (promissory note) does not require appellee to perform any acts in the State of Florida. More importantly, the uncontroverted facts of this case do not meet the jurisdictional minimum contacts test of International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
International Shoe clearly indicates that the demands of due process, regarding a personal action against a foreign corporation, may be met only by such contacts of a defendant corporation with the forum state so as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend the suit in that state. Appellee, having not entered into the promissory note in the State of Florida, having not made any payments in the State of Florida, having not agreed to make any payments in the State of Florida, and further there being no indication that appellee had any reasonable expectation that it would be required by the note to have any dealings in the State of Florida, has never done business in the State of Florida so as to meet the jurisdictional minimum contacts which due process of law requires.
Based upon the above it is clear that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the person of appellee and that the trial judge properly granted appellee’s motion to dismiss, and therefore the order of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alain Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…he defendant in First National Bank of Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Also, it is noteworthy that the parties did not expressly agree that the loans would be repaid in Florida. See Gerard v. Pisces Sales & Marketing, Inc., 425 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Perhaps most significantly, there are no allegations in this case that the defendant son-in-law availed himself of any privileges and benefits of Florida law. In shor…
-
Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…-193(l)(g). More importantly, the uneontro-verted facts fail to meet the jurisdictional minimum contacts test of International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).3 See Gerard v. Pisces Sales & Marketing, Inc., 425 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). REVERSED. ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J„ concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). . It could be argued that the place of payment was in the disjunctive, that is, payment was to be made either at Bryan’s office in Orlando o…
-
Nat'l Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Watkins, 471 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…te business with a consumer in a foreign state (National Equipment Leasing, Inc., in this case) should be required to go there to litigate disputes arising out of those business transactions. See generally Gerard v. Pisces Sales and Marketing, Inc., 425 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). This case should be affirmed for these reasons. . The fact that a contract clause calls for the application of Florida law is not a significant factor in "minimum contac…
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State OF Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)