CONDOTEL BAHAMAS, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
LEAVELL BAHAMAS, LTD., 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.
CondoTel Bahamas appealed a lower court order quashing service of process in a dispute involving Bahamian companies regarding an arbitration award. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the quashing of service but reversed the dismissal with prejudice, holding that defective service does not warrant dismissal on the merits and that Florida courts may consider setting aside arbitration awards under certain circumstances.
The court affirmed that service of process was defective and properly quashed, but reversed the dismissal with prejudice. The court held that defective service does not constitute an adjudication on the merits and does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to consider, under certain circumstances, the setting aside of an arbitration award, even when the Florida Arbitration Code does not apply.
[1] Service of process is defective when the action does not fall within statutory provisions for constructive service and is instead governed by other statutory provisions.
[2] Quashing service of process does not serve as a predicate for dismissal of the complaint nor does it constitute an adjudication of the merits of the claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Service of process was therefore defective.”
Establishes that the lower court correctly found service of process defective under Chapter 48 of the Florida Statutes rather than Section 49.011.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCondoTel Bahamas, Ltd. and Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., both Bahamian companies, were parties to a contract for a project located in the Bahamas. The contra…
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 Constructive Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal and having heard oral argument we are of the opinion that that portion of the final judgment quashing the service of process should be affirmed.
The nature of the instant action and proceeding is not one that falls within the provisions of F.S., Section 49.011, F.S.A., sanctioning constructive service of process, but rather is governed by the provisions of Chapter 48, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Service of process was therefore defective. Marine Transport Lines, Inc. v. Green, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 710; Jones v. Denmark, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 198. See also 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Section 1354 (1969).
However, such ruling would not serve as a predicate upon which to base a dismissal of the complaint nor would it constitute an adjudication of the merits of the claim;1 nor do we feel for the reasons hereinafter discussed, that the subject matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. A consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction between the parties suggests that the Florida Arbitration Code is not applicable. See F.S., Sections 682.02 and 682.18(1), F.S.A. The parties to this action are companies registered in the Bahamas; the subject matter of the contract is situated in the Bahamas; the contract was entered into in the Bahamas and was to be performed in the Bahamas; and the contract provides that it shall be governed by the law of the place where the project is located.
However, the inapplicability of the provisions of the Florida Arbitration Code docs not oust the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider under certain circumstances the setting aside of an arbitration award (assuming that the parties are properly within the jurisdiction of the tribunal). Johnson v. Wells, 1916, 72 Fla. 290, 73 So. 188; see also Fenster v. Makovsky, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 427; Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 599; Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Charles W. Ackerman of Fla., Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 110; Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Gulf Breeze Cottages, Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 828; Vol. 6 U. of Fla.L.Rev. pp. 157-193.
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, for *191the reasons and to the extent as herein-above set forth.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in an in personam tort action like the instant one. See Section 49.011, Fla.Stat. (1975). See also, e. g., Ake v. Chancey, 152 Fla. 677, 13 So. 2d 6 (1943); Coodotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 276 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). . After appellants’ motion was filed, but before it was heard, appellees unsuccessfully attempted to serve Drake in Ohio pursuant to the long-arm statute, Sections 48.193 and 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1975). The Sheriff of Sandusky Co…
-
Alan Rest. Corp. v. Selma Walder and Irving Walder, 399 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…are not included in the foregoing list of actions and therefore ser- [*1130] vice of process by publication is unauthorized in negligence actions. Drake v. Scharlau, 353 So. 2d 961 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 276 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Jones v. Denmark, 259 So. 2d 198 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Nonetheless, dismissal of an action is inappropriate when a plaintiff has made improper use of Chapter 49 in attempting to gain personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Condote…
-
Condotel Bahamas, Ltd. v. Leavell Bahamas, Ltd., 281 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 276 So. 2d 189. ROBERTS, Acting C. J, and ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ, concur. BOYD, J, dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edwards v. State, 72 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1916)
- Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1916)
- Pacific Mills v. Hillman Garment, Inc., 87 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1956)
- Jones v. Nan Gay Denmark and John A. Denmark, 259 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Fenster v. Makovsky et ux., 67 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1953)
- Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Charles W. Ackerman OF Fla., Inc., 219 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Gulf Breeze Cottages, 38 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1949)
- Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. Green, 114 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)