NICOLAS FLEITAS AND MARY FLEITAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNION CHELSEA NATIONAL BANK, 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.
The Fleitases sued Union Chelsea National Bank, a New York institution, after a fraudulent check drawn on a Florida NationsBank account was deposited into Union Chelsea's account and the funds were absconded with. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that a New York bank's acceptance and processing of a Florida check through normal Federal Reserve clearing procedures did not subject it to Florida's long-arm jurisdiction.
Union Chelsea National Bank was not subject to Florida's long-arm jurisdiction. The bank's actions of accepting the Florida check, initiating collection through normal Federal Reserve clearing procedures, and paying the proceeds, all of which occurred in New York, did not constitute sufficient contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida Statutes § 48.181, 193(1).
[1] A bank's actions in accepting a check drawn on a Florida account, initiating its collection through the Federal Reserve clearing house process, and paying the proceeds, a…
[2] The mere initiation of a check collection process through the Federal Reserve system by a foreign bank does not establish sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to conf…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 trial court dismissed the action as against Union Chelsea for lack of jurisdiction over its person. We agree that the actions of the New York bank in accepting the Florida cheek, initiating its collection through the normal Federal Reserve clearing house process, and paying the proceeds — all of which occurred in New York — did not, contrary to the plaintiffs' assertions, subject it to the long-arm jurisdiction of the Florida court.”
The court's primary holding that Union Chelsea's activities in New York, including processing the check through normal banking channels, did not establish personal jurisdiction in Florida.
The Florida Insurance Guarantee Association issued a check payable to the Fleitases and their agent for Hurricane Andrew damages. Someone deposited th…
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 Long Arm Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The Florida Insurance Guarantee Association issued a check drawn on a Florida NationsBank account payable to the Fleitases and their agent for Hurricane Andrew damages to their home. The Fleitases never saw the money, however, because the check was deposited in the Union Chelsea National Bank, a New York institution, by someone who absconded with the funds. In this action on the cheek by the Fleitases against both banks, see Larkin General Hosp., Ltd. v. Bank of Florida, 464 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Florida Bar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 391 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.1981), the trial court dismissed the action as against Union Chelsea1 for lack of jurisdiction over its person.
We agree that the actions of the New York bank in accepting the Florida cheek, initiating its collection through the normal Federal Reserve clearing house process, and paying the proceeds — all of which occurred in New York — did not, contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, subject it to the long-arm jurisdiction of the Florida court. §§ 48.181, 193(1), Fla.Stat. (1993); see Jet Charter Serv., Inc. v. Koeck, 907 F. 2d 1110 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 937, 111 S.Ct. 1390, 113 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991); Oriental Imports and Exports, Inc. v. Maduro & Curiel’s Bank, N.V., 701 F. 2d 889 (11th Cir.1983); Gateway Leasing, Inc. v. American Bank, 577 F.Supp. 908 (D.Md.1984); First United Bank of Mississippi v.
First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 505, 340 S.E. 2d 597 (1986); Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 245 Kan. 154, 777 P. 2d 759 (1989).
Affirmed.
. The case proceeds below against NationsBank.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geissler v. State, 90 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…lling the truth about the alleged sexual abuse. We agree. As a general rule, “it is not proper to allow an expert to vouch for the truthfulness or credibility of a witness.” Frances v. State, 970 So. 2d 806, 814 (Fla. 2007) (citing Feller v. State, 687 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla.1994), and State v. Townsend, 685 So. 2d 949, 958 (Fla.1994)). The general rule applies to prohibit an expert witness from testifying concerning the truthfulness or credibility of the victim in child sexual abuse cases. Tingle v. State, 53…
Authorities Cited
- Oriental Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Maduro & Curiel's Bank, 701 F.2d 889 (11th Cir. 1983)
- JET Charter Serv., Inc. v. Koeck, 907 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1990)
- THE Florida BAR v. Allstate Ins. Co., 391 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Williamson v. Abilene Indep. Sch. Dist., 499 U.S. 937 (U.S. 1991)
- Hernandez v. McDERMOTT, 464 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Phelps v. Matthews, 499 U.S. 937 (U.S. 1991)