HARRY C. BOGGS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT L. YODER, JR., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss because the defendants' affidavits sufficiently rebutted the jurisdictional allegations, and the plaintiffs failed to provide counter-evidence.
Plaintiffs sued West Virginia residents (Boggses) alleging conspiracy with a Florida-based co-defendant, attempting service under the Florida Long Arm…
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellees sued defendants-appellants (Boggses), residents of West Virginia, and attempted service of process under the Florida Long Arm Statute, section 48.-193, Florida Statutes. The complaint alleges that the Boggses were officers in certain foreign corporations and that the Boggses conspired with a co-defendant, Frank A. Roark, who was doing business in Orlando. The complaint does not allege that the Boggses personally acted in the State of Florida. The Boggses filed affidavits denying these essential jurisdictional facts and specifically denied that Roark acted as their agent. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and the Boggses appeal.
The Boggses’ affidavits were sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the Florida long arm statute did not apply and the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their jurisdictional allegations in the complaint, assuming those allegations were initially sufficient.1 The plaintiffs presented no rebuttal evidence as to these matters. Therefore, the Boggses’ motion to dismiss should have been granted.
The order denying the motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint as to the Boggses.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See Electro Engineering Products Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977); Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); McLean Financial Corp. v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 488 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), affirmed, 511 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1987); Bank of Wessingtoh v. Winters Government Securities Corp., 361 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Intercontinental Corp. v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…a into Florida seeking to convince ORMC to reduce their bills do not constitute “doing business in Florida” for purposes of 48.193(1), Florida Statutes. This statute is designed to reach individuals or entities who act in this state, Boggs v. Yoder, 546 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), or who perform specifically delineated acts outside the state that have repercussions within the state, most notably, causing personal injury or property damage in Florida or failing to perform contractual obligations due in Flo…
-
Miller v. Braunstein, 549 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…of the Florida court over this defendant. Even if the complaint had been sufficient, Miller, by'affidavit, denied that any specific basis for jurisdiction existed. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal was insufficient to overcome this denial. See Boggs v. Yoder, 546 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The trial court therefore erred in denying defendant Miller’s motion to quash and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse and re mand with instructions to grant the motion. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ.,…
Authorities Cited
- Electro Eng'g Prods. Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977)
- AETNA Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 511 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1987)
- Bank OF Wessington & Arnold Domke v. Winters Gov't Sec. Corp., 361 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- AETNA Life & Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 488 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- McLEAN Fin. Corp. v. Winslow Loudermilk Corp., 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Gollwitzer v. State, 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)