SEYMOUR LUSTIG AND LEONA BENIOFF, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD FEINBERG ET AL., 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.
Lustig and Benioff appealed the dismissal of defendants Feinberg and Seigel from their suit in Florida, challenging the trial court's finding that service of process was insufficient. The court held that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida through a joint venture involving the purchase of a motel in Fort Walton Beach, satisfying long-arm statute requirements.
The defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to subject them to the long-arm statute. The trial court was in error in deleting the defendants, and the process served upon them was valid.
[1] Service of process on non-resident individuals under a state's long-arm statute is permissible if the statutory requirements are met.
[2] A joint venture involving the purchase of real estate in Florida and subsequent leasing of that property to a Florida corporation in which the non-resident defendants are…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Statutory Mechanics in perfecting service of process on the individual non-residents, Feinberg and Seigel, pursuant to the 'long arm' statutes (F.S. § 48.161-48.19, F.S.A.) were complied with. The question to be decided by this court is whether or not the said appellees have had sufficient 'minimum contact' with the State of Florida to subject them to this manner of process.”
Establishes the core legal issue—whether defendants had minimum contacts with Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Lustig and Benioff entered into a joint venture with defendants Feinberg and Seigel, paying money to the defendants for the purpose of purc…
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 Joint Venture cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order deleting Bernard Feinberg and Max Seigel as party defendants for the reason that service of process was not perfected upon them.
It appears from the record that the Statutory Mechanics in perfecting service of process on the individual non-residents, Feinberg and Seigel, pursuant to the “long arm” statutes (F.S. § 48.161-48.19, F.S.A.) were complied with. The question to be decided by this court is whether or not the said appellees have had sufficient “minimum contact” with the State of Florida to subject them to this manner of process.
In the amended complaint, with the attached exhibits, it is alleged in substance, that the said plaintiffs and defendants had entered into a joint venture wherein the plaintiffs paid certain money to the ap-pellees for the purpose of buying certain real estate in Florida; and that the said defendants bought a motel in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and on the same date leased the same to Fort Walton Vincent, Inc., a Florida corporation, in which the said defendants were the majority stockholders.
Without going into further details, we hold that the facts in this case are sufficient to bring this case within the holdings of the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of State ex. rel. Weber, et ux. v. Register, 67 So.2d 619 (1953) and Wm. E. *300Strasser Construction Corporation v. Linn, 97 So.2d 458 (1957), and that the trial court was in error in deleting said individual appellees-defendants, as defendants in said cause. It appears to us, and we so hold, that said process was valid.
Reversed and remanded to the lower court, with directions to reinstate said defendants, with said defendants being given twenty (20) days within which to plead as they might be advised.
SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. B. L. Realty Corp. v. Cohl, 384 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…to a business venture within the meaning and intent of Section 47.16(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 149 So. 2d at 587. See also, Lyster v. Round, 276 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1973). On the other hand, Lustig v. Feinberg, 257 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), which contained allegations of a business venture to purchase and lease a Florida motel, was found to be directly controlled by the hold [*1355] ing in Weber, supra. So, too, with O’Connell v. Loach, 203 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Seymour Lustig and Leona Benioff v. Feinberg, 285 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…ot yet knowing of the foreclosure, filed their original action and then an amended complaint seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint in an order appealed to this court, and we reversed the said order. See Lustig v. Feinberg, 257 So. 2d 299 (Fla.App.1972). The plaintiffs dropped their claim for damages and sought rescission of the joint venture agreement. The defendants then moved to dismiss the action, whereupon the trial court dismissed the action without requiring the defendants to…
-
Bernabe Somoza v. Marcial Solis, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Association, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Lustig v. Feinberg, 257 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Horace v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 251 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); duPont v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). See Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fiedelbaum v. Lapidus, 163 So. 2d 334…
Authorities Cited
- WM. E. Strasser Constr. Corp. v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1957)
- State ex rel. Weber et ux. v. Register, 67 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1953)