MARSHALL SOROKWASZ, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY KAISER, 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.
Sorokwasz, a Texas resident and corporate officer, guaranteed an investment made by Kaiser, a Florida resident, in Western Oil Corporation. After Western drew on a letter of credit secured by the guarantee, Kaiser sued in Florida for payment. The trial court entered summary judgment for Kaiser, and Sorokwasz appealed on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that purposeful direction of commercial activity toward Florida residents established sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, and that the guaranty was clear and enforceable without parol evidence, with no material disputes regarding the amount owed.
[1] A defendant's commercial actions purposefully directed toward residents of another state can establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, even in the absence of…
[2] Soliciting an investment via correspondence and telephone calls to a resident of another state, resulting in a guaranty addressed to that resident and the drawing of a le…
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“So long as a commercial actor's efforts are 'purposefully directed' toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.”
Establishes the standard for personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in commercial matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSorokwasz, a Texas resident and officer of International Western Oil Corporation, solicited Kaiser's investment in Western through correspondence and …
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 Place Of Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Sorokwasz, who was defendant below, appeals a summary judgment against him in an action on a guaranty. We affirm.
Sorokwasz initially asserts that there are insufficient minimum contacts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. Sorokwasz is a resident of Texas where he is an officer of International Western Oil Corporation. Sorokwasz solicited an investment by appellee Kaiser in Western, which was accomplished through correspondence and telephone calls directed to Kaiser in Florida. A guaranty, signed by Sorokwasz and others, was addressed to Kaiser in Florida; Kaiser put up a letter of credit for $46,000 at Southeast Bank in Florida; and Western eventually drew the full amount of the letter of credit. Kaiser demanded payment under the guarantee but the payment was not forthcoming. Kaiser brought suit and the trial court entered summary judgment in his favor.
Appellant argues that the facts just outlined are insufficient to establish the minimum contacts necessary for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction.
We disagree. “So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purposefully directed’ toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 543 (1985). The contacts involved here cannot be deemed “random,” “fortuitous,” “attenuated,” or the “unilateral activity of another 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 Central Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Muskat Corp. of America, 430 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Under our decisions, where the place of payment is not specifically set forth in the agreement, it is deemed to be at the residence of the creditor, in this case, Florida. Engineered Storage Systems v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114, 114-15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Sorokwasz also argues that certain payments to Kaiser had reduced the amount owed under the guaranty. The payments to which Sorokwasz’ affidavit refers, however, were made in 1982 and 1983. The letter of credit at issue in the present case was not drawn against until 1986. Until that occurred, Kaiser incurred no expense under the letter of credit, and was not entitled to recover under the guaranty. There is no facial notation on the payment records connecting the 1982 and 1983 payments to Kaiser with the guaranty. The trial court correctly concluded that there was no disputed issue of material fact as to the amount owed under the guaranty.
Affirmed.
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)…the doing of any of the following acts: (g) Breaching a 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.…
-
Pres-Kap, Inc. v. Sys. ONE, 636 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…that it could reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of Florida. See and compare Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Venetian Salami v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989); Sorokwasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Pellerito Foods v. American Conveyors, 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Therefore I find no error in the trial court denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and would affirm. . The fact that the owne…
-
O'Brien Glass Co. v. Miami Wall Sys., Inc., 645 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…clear from the record whether the parties reached any agreement as to where O’Brien was to make payment for the windows and other materials, the law requires us to presume that payment is to be made where the payee resides. See Sorok-wasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), disapproved of on other grounds by, Payless Drug Stores, 615 So. 2d at 251; Katz v. Richard Plumer Co., 479 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Kane v. Hebert, 430 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cent. Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Muskat Corp. OF Am., Inc., 430 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gilbert v. Herne, 544 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)