ELI BEN-AZIZ, APPELLANT,
v.
HAIM POLANI, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1998-04-15
No. 97-4306
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
710 So. 2d 125 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1998)

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.

Synopsis

Ben-Aziz appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction in a contract rescission dispute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Ben-Aziz failed to establish a valid affidavit challenging jurisdiction and that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently established jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute based on his operation of a Florida business venture.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. The affidavit was deficient because it was not properly authenticated under Florida Statute section 92.50(3), and even accepting the affidavit, Ben-Aziz failed to refute the allegations that he operated a business venture in Florida within the meaning of the long-arm statute.


Headnotes

[1] An affidavit taken in a foreign country is insufficient to challenge jurisdiction if it is not authenticated by the signature and official seal of an officer authorized b…

[2] An attorney or advocate in a foreign country is not automatically an authorized officer for the purpose of taking an affidavit under Florida Statutes section 92.50(3) unl…

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

Key Quotes

“A lawyer or advocate is not one of the officials designated by the statute to administer oaths and take affidavits in a foreign country.”

Establishes that the affidavit was deficient because it was not properly authenticated under Florida law

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Ben-Aziz, a resident of both the United States and Israel, owned a residence in Dade County, Florida. He and Polani operated and managed P.D. Internat…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GROSS, Judge.

GROSS, Judge.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

In the amended complaint, Haim Polani sued Eli Ben-Aziz for rescission of a contract. The pleading alleged that Ben-Aziz, a resident of both the United States and Israel, owned a residence in Dade County, Florida; that Ben-Aziz and Polani had operated and managed a Florida corporation, P.D. International, Inc. from its inception; that the corporation engaged in the construction of residences in Broward County and owned property there; that Ben-Aziz was the president of the corporation and Polani was the vice president; and that in early 1995, the parties had two meetings in Broward County in connection with winding up their joint ownership of the corporation, at which the terms of an agreement were worked out. The amended complaint stated that the parties entered into a written contract by which appellee agreed to pay appellant $145,000 for his one-half interest in the corporation and that the only asset of the corporation was the obligation of another builder to pay for real property under a contingency sales contract. The pleading contended that a written agreement was signed in May, 1995, in Israel as a convenience to the parties.

Appellant moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In support of the motion, he filed a document titled “Affidavit.” In it, appellant declared, under penalties of punishment under the Israeli Penal Code, that he had been a resident of Israel for the last six years, that he was not a resident of Florida, that the agreement between himself and Po-lani was signed in Israel, and all performance of it was to take place in Israel or in any place appellant designated.

After a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss, giving him twenty days to answer the amended complaint.

We first note that the affidavit is deficient, for failure to comply with section 92.50(3), Florida Statutes (1997). That section authorizes affidavits to be taken in a foreign country by or before “any judge or justice of a court of last resort, any notary public of such foreign country, any minister, consul general, charge d’affaires, or consul of the United States resident in such country.” The statute also requires that the “jurat, or certificate of proof or acknowledgment” be authenticated by the “signature and official seal of the officer or person taking or administering same. ” Id. Appellant made his affidavit before “Mr. Moshe Shporen, Esq.,” whose official seal identifies him as

"fTpiy1 Advocate."

A lawyer or advocate is not one of the officials designated by the statute to administer oaths and take affidavits in a foreign country. A notary public in Israel must be an Israeli citizen who has practiced as an advocate in Israel for 15 years or for only 10 years under certain circumstances. See Martindale-Hub-bell Israel Law Digest at ISR-11 (1997). Thus, it appears that being an advocate in Israel does not automatically confer the status of notary public. The affidavit was not properly authenticated under section 92.50(3), because it does not contain the official seal of an officer authorized by the statute to take an affidavit. It was therefore insufficient to challenge jurisdiction under the procedure set forth in Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989). See American Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Eising, 673 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Even accepting the affidavit, appellant has failed to refute the allegations in the amended complaint that he operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a “business or business venture in this state” within the meaning of section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statues (1997). See Rand v. Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Ass’n, 555 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Waye v. Eddings, 638 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw