BEN LAWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARK C. BENSON, 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.
This case concerns whether a nonresident party and witness in a Florida legal proceeding is immune from service of process for a separate attorney's fees claim. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the party was immune and the claim did not fall under any exceptions.
Yes, the nonresident party was immune from service of process for the attorney's fees claim. No, the facts of this case did not bring it within the exception for actions incidental to the original proceeding.
“While here as a party and witness in that second proceeding, he was sued for fees by the lawyer who had represented him in the earlier proceeding.”
Describes the circumstances under which the service of process was attempted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA nonresident, Clark C. Benson, was in Florida for a child custody proceeding. His former attorney sued him for unpaid fees related to an earlier, ine…
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 Immunity From Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee Clark C. Benson, a nonresident, filed a proceeding in Florida against an ex-wife for certain relief relating to child custody. It ended ineffectively, and with his attorney claiming an unpaid balance of fees. Thereafter, through a different attorney, Benson filed another custody proceeding against the ex-wife in Dade County. While here as a party and witness in that second proceeding, he was sued for fees by the lawyer who had represented him in the earlier proceeding. His motion to quash the service and dismiss the cause, on the ground that he was immune from service of process, was granted. In so holding, the able trial judge was eminently correct. See Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112, 116.
But the appellant argues that the ap-pellee was not immune to service of process in the action for attorney’s fees, because of the exception which applies when the action in which the party is sought to be served is incidental to or correlated with the subject matter of the suit or proceeding for which such person is present in the state. The facts of this case did not bring it within the exception. Compare L. P. Evans Motors, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 301; State ex rel. Ivey v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 792; Sanders v. Smith, 197 Miss. 304, 20 So.2d 663.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)…a reasonable time before and after going to court and in returning to their homes." (emphasis ours) Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112 (1938). It has been likewise so held in Lienard v. DeWitt, 153 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1963); Lawson v. Benson, 136 So. 2d 353 (3d DCA, Fla.1962); Bruner v. Robins, 191 So. 2d 567 (3d DCA, Fla.1966). These authorities set forth an exception to this rule. The exception is where “the second suit” is incidental to the one upon which attendance was required. The “modification”…
-
Lienard v. DeWITT, 143 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…should be granted under the immunity rule, based on public policy, as defined by the Supreme Court of Florida in Rorick v. Chancy, 1937, 130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112, and followed by the Third District Court of Appeal in Lawson v. Benson, Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 353: “ * * * It appears to be established that witnesses and suitors in attendance in court outside of the territorial jurisdiction of their residence are immune from service of process while attending court and for a reasonable time before and after g…
Authorities Cited
- Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1937)
- State Ex Rel. Ivey v. Cir. Court of Eleventh Jud. Cir., 51 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1951)
- L. P. Evans Motors, Inc. v. Meyer, 119 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)