CITIBANK, N.A., PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE EDWARD S. KLEIN, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND IRA KINSLER, RESPONDENTS
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.
Citibank sought prohibition against a circuit judge's order temporarily enjoining an issuing bank from honoring a letter of credit. The court held that without personal jurisdiction over Citibank as beneficiary, the trial court lacked in rem jurisdiction because the letter of credit itself was located in New York, outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction because in the absence of personal jurisdiction over the beneficiary Citibank, in rem jurisdiction required that the letter of credit itself be within the court's jurisdiction. Since the letter was located in New York, the trial court could not exercise in rem jurisdiction over it.
[1] A court must have personal jurisdiction over the holder-beneficiary of a letter of credit, or the letter itself must be located within the court's jurisdiction, to acquir…
[2] The relationship between the issuer of an irrevocable letter of credit and the beneficiary is not that of debtor and creditor for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction…
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“in the absence, as here, of personal jurisdiction over the holder-beneficiary Citibank, N.A., in order to acquire in rem jurisdiction, it was necessary that the letter itself, at all times located in New York, be within the trial court's jurisdiction”
Establishes the core holding that in rem jurisdiction requires the res itself to be within the court's territorial jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKinsler sued in Dade County Circuit Court to enjoin a Miami-area bank from paying Citibank, N.A., the beneficiary of a letter of credit. Citibank move…
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 Debtor-Creditor Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Kinsler sued in the Dade County Circuit Court to, inter alia, enjoin a Miami area bank, issuer of a letter of credit, from paying the beneficiary of this letter of credit, Citibank, N.A., a New York based national banking association. Citibank, N.A. moved to dismiss, asserting that the Circuit Court had neither personal jurisdiction over it, nor in rem jurisdiction over the letter of credit. Before this motion could be heard, Kinsler voluntarily dismissed his action against Citibank, N.A. His action against the issuer continued, and the Circuit Court thereafter temporarily enjoined the issuer from honoring the letter of credit. Citibank asks us to issue our writ prohibiting the respondent judge from conducting further proceedings in respect to this letter of credit and to vacate the temporary injunction.
We grant the relief sought by Citibank, N.A. upon a holding that (1) in the absence, as here, of personal jurisdiction over the holder-beneficiary Citibank, N.A., in order to acquire in rem jurisdiction, it was necessary that the letter itself, at all times located in New York, be within the trial court’s jurisdiction, Tueta v. Rodriguez, 176 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); (2) the holding of Tueta v. Rodriguez, supra, that the relationship between the issuer of an irrevocable letter of credit and the beneficiary of that letter is not that of debtor and creditor so as to give the court where the issuer is located jurisdiction of a res upon which its judgment could operate, controls the present case, notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of Section 675.-114(2Xb), Florida Statutes (1979), which authorizes “a court of appropriate jurisdiction” to enjoin the honoring of a draft under circumstances arguably similar to those alleged by Kinsler, since this statute, while authorizing the remedy, does not purport to determine which court is one of appropriate jurisdiction, a determination made in Tueta v. Rodriguez, supra,
see Murray, Negotiable Instruments, 20 U.Miami L.Rev. 225, 228 (1965); (3) Kinsler’s reliance on Dynamics Corporation of America v. Citizens and Southern National Bank, 356 F.Supp. 991 (N.D.Ga.1973), is misplaced, since in Dynamics, as distinguished from the present case, the beneficiary of the letter of credit raised no issue of the court’s jurisdiction and, in fact, submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court by intervening in the action.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order of January 14, 1981, temporarily enjoining the issuing bank from honoring the letter of credit. We hold further that the respondent judge is without jurisdiction to further proceed in this cause so as to affect the rights of Citibank, N.A. under the letter of credit. We are confident that the respondent judge will be guided by our opinion without the necessity of formally issuing a writ of prohibition.
. Section 675.102(3), Florida Statutes (1979), specifically states:
“This chapter [Article 5] deals with some but not all of the rules and concepts of letters of credit as such rules or concepts have developed prior to this act or may hereafter develop. The fact that this chapter states a rule does not by itself require, imply, or negate application of the same or a converse rule to a situation not provided for or to a person not specified by this chapter.”
The holding in Tueta is, in our view, exactly the type of interstitial rule of law envisioned by Section 675.102(3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klem v. Espejo-Norton, 983 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…execution proceedings on debtor’s property in different circuit); Tower Credit Corp. v. State, 187 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (observing that scope of Florida circuit court jurisdiction extends to entire state); but cf. Citibank, N.A. v. Klein, 396 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See generally McGowin v. McGowin, 122 Fla. 394, 165 So. 274 (1936); State v. Ostergard, 360 So. 2d 414, 414 (Fla.1978) (Adkins, J., concurring specially); 21 C.J.S. Courts § 112 (2006); 14D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Mil…
-
Paccar Int'l, Inc. v. Commercial Bank OF Kuwait, 757 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1985)…er, Inc. v. Turkiye Is Bankasi AS., 105 Cal.App.3d 135, 164 Cal.Rptr. 181 (1980); accord Faravelli v. Bankers Trust Co., 59 N.Y.2d 615, 463 N.Y.S.2d 194, 449 N.E. 2d 1272 (1983), aff'g 85 A.D.2d 335, 447 N.Y.S.2d 962 (1982); Citibank, N.A. v. Klein, 396 So. 2d 763 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1981). . While it is true that California law would apply, that fact is of little consequence. The fact that a contract is governed by the law of a particular state does not establish that the parties have purposefully availed the…
Authorities Cited
- Victor Tueta & the Marine Bank & Tr. Co. of Tampa v. Rodriguez, 176 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)