ANTONIO T. MOLO, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
VIVIAN BELCHER AND SAM BELCHER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of motion to quash service of process, holding that personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant was not established under Fla. Stat. § 48.071 because there was no showing of ongoing business engagement in Florida or that the attorney was an agent in any business dealings.
Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant cannot be acquired under Fla. Stat. § 48.071 without a sufficient showing that the defendant was engaged in ongoing business in Florida and that the person served was an agent in that business.
[1] Under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Antonio Molo, a nonresident, was served with process through an attorney in Florida. The lower court denied Molo's motion to quash service of proc…
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 Substituted Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the lower court’s nonfinal order denying a motion to quash service of process. We reverse, finding that personal jurisdiction over the appellant was not in compliance with the requirements of section 48.071, Florida Statutes.
Section 48.071, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part as follows:
When any natural person or partnership not residing or having his or their principal place of business in this state engages in business in this state, process may be served on the person who is in charge of any business in which the defendant is engaged within this state at the time of service, including agents soliciting orders for goods, wares, merchandise or services.
There is no showing in the record here that the appellant was engaged in an ongoing business in Florida at the time of service, nor that the attorney upon whom the substituted service of process was attempted, was an agent of the appellant in any present or ongoing business dealings. Failing a sufficient demonstration that the statutory criteria have been met, jurisdiction cannot be acquired over the nonresident appellant pursuant to this long-arm statute. See Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assocs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1975). We therefore reverse.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.