DEAN E. CHERESKIN, MICHAEL S. CHERESKIN, AND JAMES W. CHERESKIN, NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS THE CO-TRUSTEES OF THE IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF BARBARA A. CHERESKIN, AND THE IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF JAMES M. CHERESKIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
DEAN E. CHERESKIN, MICHAEL S. CHERESKIN, AND JAMES W. CHERESKIN, NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS THE CO-TRUSTEES OF THE IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF BARBARA A. CHERESKIN, AND THE IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF JAMES M. CHERESKIN, APPELLANTS,
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
705 So. 2d 955
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1998)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court determining that the court has jurisdiction over the trustees of the trusts, the situs of which is in Florida. We do so on the authority of Saffan v. Saffan, 588 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), Lampe v. Hoyne, 652 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989). We hold that, not only is there jurisdiction because the trust situs is in Florida, but that the statutory requirements, as well as the constitutional minimum contacts requirement, have been satisfied in this case.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roessler v. Merrill Lynch, 742 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…filed her petition. We accordingly deny the petition. We write to express our view that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. In her argument to the trial court, Roessler relied upon Ross v. Hobbs, 705 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Ross, this court quashed a protective order which prohibited the videotaping of a treating physician’s deposition because the order departed from the essential requirements of the law and resulted in a material injustice to th…
-
Humphries v. Shutterhaus-Nu Sash, Inc., 708 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ury lawsuit, petitions this court for certio-rari review of the protective order of the trial court prohibiting her from videotaping the respondents’ deposition of her treating physician. This case is governed by our recent opinion in Ross v. Hobbs, 705 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we grant the petition, issue the writ, and quash the trial court’s protective order. Certiorari granted. BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Lampe v. Hoyne, 652 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Saffan v. Sol Saffan, 588 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)