MCLEAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WINSLOW LOUDERMILK CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., 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.
McLean Financial Corporation and Frank Howard appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida's long arm statute did not permit jurisdiction over the appellants because they were not doing business in Florida, the alleged tortious acts occurred in Virginia, and the injury was financial rather than physical.
The court reversed and held that Florida's long arm statute did not provide jurisdiction over appellants because: (1) appellants were not doing business in Florida under Section 48.193(1)(a); (2) the tortious act of making fraudulent representations in Virginia by telephone was not committed in Florida under Section 48.193(1)(b); and (3) Section 48.193(1)(f) did not apply because it requires physical injury to persons or property in Florida, not merely financial injury.
[1] A defendant is not subject to Florida's long-arm jurisdiction for "doing business" in Florida if the defendant, as distinguished from a related entity, is not engaged in…
[2] A tortious act is not committed within Florida for long-arm jurisdiction purposes when fraudulent representations are made outside Florida, even if communicated by teleph…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“First, appellants, as distinguished from McLean Savings and Loan Association, were not "doing business" within the State of Florida under Section 48.193(l)(a), Florida Statutes.”
Establishes that the corporate subsidiary and individual officer were not subject to jurisdiction based on doing business in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcLean Savings and Loan Association had previously been found subject to long arm jurisdiction in Florida for providing permanent loan financing. The …
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 Long Arm Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
In McLean Savings and Loan Association v. Winslow Loudermilk Corporation, 469 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court affirmed the trial court’s finding that McLean Savings and Loan was engaged in a course of business in Florida providing permanent loan financing and was subject to long arm jurisdiction under Section 48.-193(l)(a), Florida Statutes. After that holding the plaintiffs in that case (appellees herein) amended its complaint to add as parties defendant, appellants, McLean Financial Corporation, a subsidiary of McLean Savings and Loan, and appellant, Frank Howard, an officer of both corporations. In final essence, the complaint against these appellants alleges misrepresentations during loan commitment negotiations made in telephone conversations between plaintiffs in Florida and appellants in Virginia. Appellants questioned the validity of long arm jurisdiction over them.
The trial court denied appellants’ motions to dismiss, to quash, and to abate the complaint against them for lack of jurisdiction and they appealed.
We reverse.
We find that the plaintiffs, when challenged, failed to substantiate the jurisdictional allegations against appellants in the complaint.
First, appellants, as distinguished from McLean Savings and Loan Association, were not “doing business” within the State of Florida under Section 48.193(l)(a), Florida Statutes.
Second, the “tortious act” alleged, being the making of fraudulent representations in Virginia, by telephone, was not committed in the State of Florida as required by Section 48.-193(l)(b), Florida Statutes. See Freedom Savings and Loan Association v. Ormandy & Associates, Inc., 479 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); April Industries, Inc. v. Levy, 411 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Finally, Section 48.193(l)(f), Florida Statutes, which concerns an injury within the State of Florida arising out of an act or omission occurring outside Florida, does not apply because that statute requires, and the facts in this case do not show, physical injury to occur to persons or property within Florida, as distinguished from financial injury. See Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 488 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse the order finding personal jurisdiction over appellants un der the Florida long arm statute and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint as to appellants.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002)…ommitting a tortious act” to establish personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(l)(b), suggesting that a nonresident defendant must be physically present to commit a tortious act. For example, in McLean Financial Corp. v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 509 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the Fifth District held that making fraudulent representations in Virginia by telephone to a Florida resident was insufficient to establish jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(b). See also Intercontinental Corp. v. Orland…
-
Martin Acquadro, M.D. v. Bergeron, 851 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2003)…);1 Thompson v. Doe, 596 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), approved, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1993); Intercontinental Corp. v. Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); McLean Financial Corp. v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and the Second District Court of Appeal in Koch v. Kimball, [*667] 710 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Phillips v. Orange Co., 522 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Ward, 696 So. 2d 930 (Fla.…
-
Qualley v. Int'l AIR Serv. Co., Ltd., 595 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…MacMillan-Bloedel, Ltd. v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (§ 48.181); see also Phillips v. Orange Co., 522 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA) (§ 48.193), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); McLean Financial Corp. v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (§ 48.193). The rule is otherwise where, for example, the alter ego test can be met, see Woods v. Jorgensen, 522 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1984), or where…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- April Indus., Inc. v. Levy, 411 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- AETNA Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 488 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Ormandy & Assocs., Inc., 479 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- McLEAN Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 469 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)