JACK KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
MEGA TRADING, LIMITED, A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY AND THROUGH GARY D. HOCHMAN, A GENERAL PARTNER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to quash service, holding that a non-resident's mere investment as a limited partner in a Florida limited partnership does not establish sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction under due process.
A non-resident's investment in a Florida limited partnership, without more, does not create sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over that investor.
[1] A non-resident limited partner's investment in a Florida limited partnership, consisting solely of an initial capital contribution, does not establish minimum contacts su…
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 intelligenceKlein, a New Jersey resident, purchased a limited partnership interest in Mega Trading, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on January 28, 1981. His …
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 Limited Partnership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mega Trading, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, sued Jack Klein, a New Jersey resident. Service of process was made pursuant to Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1979). Jack Klein appeared specially and timely moved to quash the service alleging, among other things, that mere investment in a Florida limited partnership is not sufficient minimum contact which satisfies due process requirements under the statute. We agree and reverse.
On or about January 28, 1981, Klein purchased an interest in Mega Trading, Ltd. as a limited partner. By the terms of the limited partnership agreement, Klein’s only contact with Florida was his initial contribution to the partnership. The purchase of an interest in a limited partnership is analogous to the purchase of stock in a corporation. Freedman v. Tax Review Board of City of Philadelphia, 212 Pa.Super. 442, 243 A. 2d 130 (1968), aff’d, 434 Pa. 282, 258 A. 2d 323 (1969). While we find no Florida authority directly on point, we conclude that the contacts created by an investment in a Florida limited partnership are no greater than those of the non-resident corporate officer and director of a Florida company described in Unterman v. Brown, 169 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). See also Uible v. Landstreet, 392 F. 2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968).
For the foregoing reasons, the order denying the motion to quash is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.D. Nichols & NTS Corp. v. Jeno Paulucci and Silver Lakes, 652 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…s rule does not apply to a limited partner, whose interest in the limited partnership is more analogous to that of a stockholder in a corporation, id. at 863, or that of a corporate officer and director. Klein v. Mega Trading, Ltd., ex rel. Hochman, 416 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). . Although the evidence at the hearing focused on Nichols' business contacts with the state of Florida, Nichols’ pre-hearing affidavit also revealed that he formerly owned a vacation home in Palm Beach County which he occasional…
-
Renda v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Tarentum, 538 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ent limited partners, since the limited partners are said to be mere investors in the limited partnership, holding an interest in the partnership analogous to the purchase of stock in a corporation. 59 Am.Jur.2d, § 1387; Klein v. Mega Trading, Ltd., 416 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a New Jersey resident’s investment in a Florida limited partnership was no more than that of a non-resident corporate officer and director of a Florida corporation, and did not constitute sufficient minimum contacts…
-
Fontan Assocs., Inc. v. Medpark, Inc., 650 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…simply having a partnership interest in a Florida limited partnership is not enough of a contact with the state to subject them to jurisdiction here. The eases cited by appellants for this proposition are not helpful. In Klein v. Mega Trading, Ltd., 416 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the factual basis for the decision by this court is too minimal to determine why Klein was sued in the first instance. There is nothing in the opinion to suggest that he was sued solely as a limited partner for dissolution of the…
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
- Uible v. Landstreet, 392 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Reeves v. State, 169 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Elvin I. Unterman v. Brown, 169 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)