LUCI VELLANTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK A. VELLANTI, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The court reversed a venue transfer from Dade to Collier County, holding that venue was properly laid in Dade County where a foreign corporation's designated service agent was located.
Venue is properly laid in a county where a foreign corporation has designated an agent for service of process, even if that is the only connection to the county.
[1] The existence of a designated agent for service of process in a particular county establishes proper venue for actions against a foreign corporation in that county under…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative.”
Quoting Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1979), the statutory basis for venue against foreign corporations.
Piper Aircraft Corporation, a foreign corporation, was served through a corporate agent designated for service of process in Dade County. The trial co…
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 Foreign Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The order transferring venue of this cause from Dade to Collier County is reversed. As demonstrated by the sheriff’s return of service — which is presumptively correct1 and has not been challenged — the defendant Piper Aircraft Corporation, a foreign corporation, was served through a corporate agent it had designated for that purpose in Dade County. It is therefore clear that venue was properly laid in Dade County under the portion of Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1979) which provides that “[a]ctions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative.” We specifically stated in Majestic II, Enterprises, Inc. v. Butler, 372 So. 2d 548, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) that “the existence merely of an agent, for service of process ..., in a particular county would establish the propriety of venue in that county as to a foreign corporation.” [e. o.] Accord, Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); see also, Touchton v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Reversed.
. Clements Naval Stores Co. v. J. S. Betts Co., 85 Fla. 49, 95 So. 126 (1923); Barnes v. Willis, 65 Fla. 363, 61 So. 828 (1913); Rorick v. Stilwell, 101 Fla. 4, 133 So. 609 (1931); see, Klo-senski v. Flaherty, 116 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1959); Winky’s Inc. v. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berdos v. Dowling, 544 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…n action against a foreign corporation may be brought in the county where the corporation has an agent or representative, or where the cause of action accrues, or where the property in litigation is located. [*1130] Vellanti v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 394 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), held that venue is appropriately laid in the county where the foreign corporation has an agent designated to accept service of process on its behalf: The order transferring venue of this cause from Dade to Collier County is reve…
-
Manley E. Gettys v. Browning, 417 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial judge’s order refusing to vacate and set aside a final judgment entered after default. The proof presented below to overcome the presumptive correctness of the return, Vellanti v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 394 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which reflected that Gettys was personally served was neither undisputed nor so clear and convincing as to require that the default be set aside. The record evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the…
-
Magical Cruise Co. Ltd. v. Renata Lohinski, 829 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…fice in the county, is when a person has been designated by the corporation to accept service of process on behalf of the corporation in that county. See Berdos v. Dowling, 544 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Vellanti v. Piper Aircraft Carp., 394 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). There is no evidence that Ms. Yablunosky was designated as an agent that would accept service of process on behalf of Disney Cruises in Miami-Dade County. Furthermore, neither party has cited nor have we found any case law that…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rorick v. Foster, 101 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1931)
- Klosenski v. Flaherty, 116 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1959)
- Barnes v. Willis, 65 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1913)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Winky's, Inc. v. Ivy M. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Clements Naval Stores Co. v. J. S. Betts Co., 85 Fla. 49 (Fla. 1923)
- Majestic II v. Butler, 372 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Alva J. Touchton v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 155 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)