JOHN RIDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE FARINA, 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.
A former husband, a New Jersey resident, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a suit by his former wife for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The court reversed, holding that the husband's insufficient contacts with Florida—where the wife moved with their child after their separation—did not satisfy due process requirements for jurisdiction over a breach of contract action on a settlement agreement executed in New Jersey.
The court held that the husband's contacts with Florida were insufficient to satisfy due process standards required for in personam jurisdiction, and the action should be dismissed. The wife's unilateral move to Florida and selection of that state as her residence, without the husband's express agreement to performance in Florida or other indicia of purposeful availment, did not provide a basis for jurisdiction.
[1] A former spouse's insufficient contacts with Florida do not satisfy due process standards for establishing in personam jurisdiction, even if the other spouse moves to Flo…
[2] The mere fact that a contract is breached in Florida is insufficient, on its own, to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“However, the husband has insufficient contacts with this state to satisfy due process standards.”
Establishes the core holding that lack of minimum contacts with Florida violates due process and defeats jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a settlement agreement in New Jersey. The husband paid child support as specified in the agreement. The wife subsequently too…
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 Due Process Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
A former husband appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss a suit by his former wife for lack of in personam jurisdiction. We reverse.
The wife sued the husband, a New Jersey resident, for breach of contract based on a settlement agreement entered into in New Jersey. The husband had paid the child support as specified in the agreement until the wife took the child and moved to Florida. We agree with the husband that the action should be dismissed.
The wife relies on Section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida court. However, the husband has insufficient contacts with this state to satisfy due process standards. The case of Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), is relevant. There the defendant son-in-law’s only connection with Florida was his borrowing money from his mother-in-law, a New York resident who later moved to Florida and demanded repayment. She too, relied on Section 48.'193(l)(g) arguing that jurisdiction resulted from the contract being breached in Florida. However, this court held that that circumstance alone was insufficient to satisfy due process. As here, the parties in Scordilis did not expressly agree that payment would be made in Florida nor were there any allegations that the son-in-law, (or the husband in the instant case) had availed himself of any privileges and benefits of Florida law. The mother-in-law’s selection of Florida as her eventual place of residence was found to be an isolated, fortuitous circumstance. Similarly, in Boyer v. Boyer, 73 Ill.2d 331, 22 Ill.Dec. 747, 383 N.E. 2d 223 (1978), the Illinois court found no jurisdiction over a Georgia resident, noting:
[T]he defendant in our case derived no commercial or personal benefits from the presence of his children or ex-wife in Illinois; thus, the facts of our case support neither the reasonableness-and-fairness test nor the minimum-contact criterion of due process.
Id. 22 Ill.Dec. at 750, 383 N.E. 2d at 226.
The wife also asserts that the husband gave her a choice of forum because of paragraph 17 of the property settlement agreement:
17. Husband’s obligations hereunder shall survive any decree of any Court granting a divorce to either of the parties for past or future fault of either party (or granting separate maintenance or alimony, temporary as well as permanent). Similarly, it is agreed that if consistent with the rules of practice of a Court granting such decree or judgment of absolute divorce, the provisions of this Agreement may be incorporated in such decree or judgment, but notwithstanding such incorporation this Agreement shall not be merged therein but shall in all respects survive same. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent either of the parties from maintaining suit for absolute divorce against the other in any jurisdiction based upon any past or future conduct of the other, nor bar the other from defending any such suit.
We decline to so interpret this paragraph. The record contains no Florida Final Judgment of Dissolution and it appears that the divorce was actually obtained m Haiti.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE ACTION.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Watkins, 471 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…te is that he did not pay money that, contractually, he owed and should have paid in the forum state, other courts have held that the debtor had insufficient contacts with the forum state to satisfy due process standards. See, e.g., Ridge v. Farina, 461 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).5 [*1372] The most interesting point presented is whether this case is distinguishable from Kane v. American Bank of Merritt Island, 449 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Kane can be distinguished. In Kane, the continuing loan guar…
Authorities Cited
- Alain Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)