VALERIE L. GILBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT J. HERNE, 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 Florida appellate court reversed a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in a contract dispute, holding that a nonresident defendant's failure to pay a promissory note payable in Florida constitutes a breach of contract within the state under Florida's long-arm statute.
The court held that a nonresident's failure to pay a promissory note payable within Florida constitutes a breach of contract within the state under Florida Statute section 48.193(1)(g), establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
[1] A nonresident's failure to pay a promissory note, which is payable within the state, constitutes a breach of contract within the state for purposes of establishing person…
[2] A defendant's contractual obligation to make payments in Florida, coupled with direct dealings between the parties, establishes sufficient minimum contacts with Florida t…
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“The failure of a nonresident who executes a promissory note to pay such note, which is payable within the state, is a 'breach of contract in this state' within the meaning of section 48.193(l)(g).”
Establishes the core legal holding that nonpayment of a note payable in Florida constitutes a breach of contract within the state for jurisdictional purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Herne, a Maine resident, signed a promissory note in New Hampshire with Valerie Gilbert, also present in New Hampshire. The consideration was t…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
We have for review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.
Robert Herne, a resident of Maine, signed a promissory note in New Hampshire. The other party to the note, Valerie Gilbert, was also in New Hampshire at the time the note was executed. The consideration for the transaction was the sale of goods and property located in New Hampshire. In the note, Heme expressly promised to send payments to Gilbert in Florida, or wherever else she designated. After payments on the note halted, Gilbert filed a complaint in Dade County demanding payment of the note. Herne filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction which was granted. The trial court’s order foreclosed Gilbert’s right to file an amended complaint in this jurisdiction but was “without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate jurisdiction.” Gilbert’s motion for rehearing was denied and this appeal followed.
Gilbert contends that Herne’s failure to repay the note was a breach of contract within the meaning of section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1987). We agree and reverse the judgment under review.
The failure of a nonresident who executes a promissory note to pay such note, which is payable within the state, is a “breach of contract in this state” within the meaning of section 48.193(l)(g). First Nat’l Bank v. Dunham, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Moltz v. Seneca Balance, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 612 (S.D.Fla.1985); Madax Inter. Corp. v. Delcher Inter. Moving, 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Feldman v. Southeast Bank, 323 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1976). That section adds to the reach of “long arm” statutes, any person “[bjreaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.” § 48.193(l)(g), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Reviewing the terms of Gilbert and Herne’s agreement requiring payment in Florida and considering the direct dealings which transpired between the parties, there is no question but that the connexity between Herne and Florida was neither “random,” “fortuitous,” nor “attenuated.” See generally Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Businessman Herne most certainly should have reasonably anticipated being haled into a Florida court if he failed to pay Gilbert in Florida as they had agreed.
Gilbert did not have to establish that Herne had engaged in or carried on business in the state. See Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We acknowledge that in Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we determined that a pleading which alleged only a guarantor’s failure to perform acts required by a guaranty contract to be performed in this state was constitutionally infirm. We find no inconsistency with our present holding and that of Herman. In the instant case, Gilbert’s complaint established that Herne and Gilbert were actual parties to the agreement rather than distant third parties not appropriately apprised of contractual obligations being assumed. See Duke Power Co. v. Hollifield, 471 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Herne should have been aware of the duty being undertaken and the ramifications of a failure to perform. The pleadings in Herman failed to provide that basic information.
Herne was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state under section 48.-193(l)(g). The trial court’s dismissal of Gilbert’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
deMCO Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state. . Consequently, C.S. Engineer's reliance upon decisions such as Sorokwasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Gilbert v. Herne, 544 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), which were both decided prior to Venetian Salami, are simply misplaced.…
-
Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. Am. Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…o was to make its payments to American in Florida. Where Florida is the designated place of payment pursuant to an agreement between a resident plaintiff and a nonresident defendant, that fact alone is a sufficient minimum contact. Gilbert v. Herne, 544 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Professional Patient Transp., Inc. v. Fink, 365 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).1 [*429] Having Florida as the place of paym…
-
Sorokwasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…r party or a third person.” Id. at 475, 105 S.Ct. at 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d at 542. The contacts involved in the present case significantly exceed those described in Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see Gilbert v. Herne, 544 So. 2d 226, 227-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the agreement is, in fact, a personal guaranty on the part of Sorokwasz and there is therefore no occasion to resort to parol evidence for an interpretation of the agreement. See…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)
- Madax Int'l Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Servs., Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- The First Nat'l Bank OF Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Interlandi v. Town OF Lantana, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Moltz v. Seneca Balance, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 612 (S.D. Fla. 1985)
- Feldman v. Se. Bank OF Dadeland, 323 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Duke Power Co. v. Hollifield, 471 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)