WILLIAM W. CHASTAIN, WILLIAM W. CHASTAIN AS PRESIDENT OF WILLIAM W. CHASTAIN, P.A., WILLIAM W. CHASTAIN, P.A., WORLD NAVIGATION, INC., AND HENDRIK UITERWYK, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAURIE F. UITERWYK, 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.
This case addresses whether a trial court in a divorce proceeding can enjoin and direct disbursement of funds belonging to a third-party corporation (World Navigation) that are held in an attorney's trust account, when neither the corporation nor the attorney are parties to the dissolution action. The appellate court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by binding non-parties.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders binding on Chastain or World Navigation or affecting funds belonging to World Navigation. While the court could direct or enjoin Hendrik Uiterwyk personally regarding funds in his possession or control, it could not bind non-parties or their assets.
[1] A court cannot issue orders that bind parties who have not been made participants in the legal proceedings.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to control or disburse funds belonging to a corporation that is not a party to the dissolution of marriage proceedings.
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“It is well settled in American jurisprudence that no court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party.”
Establishes the fundamental jurisdictional principle underlying the appellate court's reversal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage between Hendrik and Laurie Uiterwyk, the trial court ordered temporary support payments. When Hendrik failed to pay, Laur…
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 Jurisdiction Over Non-Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
This is an appeal from three nonfinal orders entered in the dissolution of marriage proceedings between Hendrik Uiter-wyk and Laurie F. Uiterwyk. The appellants Chastain and World Navigation, Inc., are not and have never been made parties to these proceedings. World Navigation is a Florida corporation of which Hendrik Ui-terwyk is president and chairman of the board, but not the sole stockholder. Chas-tain, an attorney, is a personal friend of Hendrik Uiterwyk who represents World Navigation and apparently also represents Hendrik Uiterwyk personally in some matters.
The trial judge entered an order for payment of temporary support for Laurie Ui-terwyk and the parties’ children. Hendrik Uiterwyk filed a motion to reduce the amount of the temporary support and Laurie Uiterwyk filed a motion for contempt for nonpayment of temporary support. At hearings before the trial judge it was revealed that $50,000 of funds belonging to World Navigation had been placed in Chas-tain’s trust account subject to disbursement only upon orders given by Hendrik Uiterwyk. The funds had been partially disbursed, including payments to Chastain as retainers for legal services involving World Navigation, payments for business expenses of World Navigation, and payments for personal expenses of Hendrik Uiterwyk.
Laurie Uiterwyk moved the trial court to enjoin Hendrik Uiterwyk and Chastain from disbursing or dealing with $2,194.31 of World Navigation funds remaining in Chastain’s trust account, and $7,000 of the trust account funds which had previously been paid to Chastain for services to be rendered on behalf of World Navigation, but which had not yet been earned. The trial judge granted Laurie Uiterwyk’s motion and entered an order on June 4, 1984, enjoining Hendrik Uiterwyk and Chastain from disbursing any of the funds remaining in the Chastain trust account representing funds deposited by World Navigation and also enjoining them from disbursing the $7,000 which had been paid to Chastain from the trust account as a retainer for services to be rendered. The appellants appeal this order. Laurie Uiterwyk then filed a motion for entry of an order directing Hendrik Uiter-wyk to pay costs incurred by her attorneys. The motion requested that the funds be paid directly to the attorneys for Laurie Uiterwyk from the funds previously enjoined.
On June 19, 1984, the trial judge entered an order granting that motion and directing payment of $7,564.41 in costs from the enjoined funds of World Navigation and Chastain to counsel for Laurie Uiterwyk. The appellants appeal this order. World Navigation and Chastain filed a motion to dissolve the June 4 injunction on the ground that the trial judge was without jurisdiction to control the funds of World Navigation, which was not a party to the lawsuit. The trial judge denied that motion and the appellants appeal.
The appellants argue that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in enjoining and directing disbursement of the funds of World Navigation in the possession of Chastain, when neither World Navigation nor Chastain are before the court and the funds do not represent marital assets of the parties to this dissolution action. We are compelled to agree. It is well settled in American jurisprudence that no court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party. Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F. 2d 832 (2d Cir.1930).
While the trial judge clearly has jurisdiction to direct or enjoin Hendrik Uiterwyk personally as to funds in his possession or subject to his control, he had no jurisdiction to enter orders binding on Chastain or World Navigation, or affecting funds belonging to World Navigation.
Accordingly, we reverse the orders appealed and remand for further proceedings.
RYDER, C.J., and FOGLE, HARRY W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Cornerstone Buses., Inc., 872 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…nability to waive arbitration pursuant to a clause in a contract to which it was not a party, as a matter of law and constitutional due process the circuit court’s order denying National Union’s request for arbitration is void. Chastain v. Uiterwyk, 462 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“It is well settled in American jurisprudence that no court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party.”); see also Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla.1956) (“It is so fundamental to our concept of justice t…
-
Chase v. Turner, 560 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Chase individually “for an accounting” must be set aside. We agree with Chase’s initial premise — that a court cannot award judgment against someone who is not a party to the action. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1956); Chastain v. Uiterwyk, 462 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pan Am Bank of Miami v. Osgood, 383 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. den., 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1980); Moretto v. Staub, 370 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We disagree, however, with appellant’s conclusion that this principle of…
-
Trans Health Mgmt. Inc. v. Nunziata, 159 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…those who are not parties to the action. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of Shell, 978 So. 2d 885, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools of Fla., Inc. v. Swim Indus. Corp., 597 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Chastain v. Uiterwyk, 462 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC, 925 So. 2d 462, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alemite MFG. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930)