LEASEFIRST, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLIED MACHINERY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. AND JEFFREY FROHOCK, SR., 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.
LeaseFirst, a lessor, obtained a default judgment against Allied Machinery in Michigan courts after serving the contractually appointed agent for service of process. Allied Machinery challenged the judgment in Florida, claiming invalid service, but the appellate court held that service on a contractually designated agent is constitutionally and legally sound, and the Michigan judgment must be given full faith and credit.
Service of process on a contractually appointed agent is constitutional and legally valid under both federal and Florida law. The Michigan judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, and execution may proceed because there is no defect in service that would have deprived the Michigan court of jurisdiction.
[1] A party is bound by the terms of a contract, including provisions for service of process on a designated agent, even if the contract is a form contract.
[2] Service of process on a contractually appointed agent is constitutionally permissible.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 now well settled that there is no constitutional impediment to service on a contractually appointed agent for service of process, even in a form contract such as was used here.”
Establishes the constitutional validity of service on contractually designated agents, citing National Equipment Rental Ltd. v. Szukhent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeaseFirst and Allied Machinery entered into an equipment lease agreement in which Allied Machinery expressly consented to suit in Michigan, waived ju…
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 Full Faith And Credit Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
In this equipment lease, appellee (as lessee) expressly consented to suit in Michigan with a waiver of a jury, as well as the appointment of a named entity in Michigan as its agent for service of process. Claiming a default, appellant (as the lessor) brought an action in Michigan against appellee and served the contractually appointed agent with process. Ultimately, a default judgment was entered against appel-lee by the Michigan court.
Appellant then brought the judgment to Florida and recorded it. To head off the inevitable execution on its assets, appellee filed a proceeding under section 55.509(1), Florida Statutes (1991), claiming that the service of process was invalid. The trial court agreed, finding that service on the Michigan agent was “incorrect as a matter of law.” This appeal promptly followed.
It is now well settled that there is no constitutional impediment to service on a contractually appointed agent for service of process, even in a form contract such as was used here. See National Equipment Rental Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964). Nor is there any problem under Florida law with this procedure. Southwest Cycle Sales Inc. v. Gold Key Marketing Inc., 265 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
We see nothing wrong with the Michigan service. The lessee is charged with reading the contract before signing it and cannot later disclaim knowledge of its contents or its legal effect. Allied Van Lines Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1977).
There is no suggestion that the contract is unenforceable or that service was made in a manner not contemplated by the parties’ agreement. In fact, the only basis urged for invalidity is that the agent was negligent in giving lessee notice that it had received suit papers on its behalf. That, however, is a quarrel between lessee and its agent; it does not vitiate service.
We conclude that appellee has failed to show any defect in service of process in the Michigan action which would have deprived the Michigan court of jurisdiction over it. The trial court was required to give full faith and credit to the Michigan judgment and allow execution to proceed. We therefore reverse and remand for consistent proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. Violeta M. Vazquez, 922 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…was voluntarily underemployed because he did not make a good faith effort to find comparable employment after being terminated, instead deciding to start his own business, a decision that has considerably limited his income. In Robinson v. Robinson, 597 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we affirmed the trial court’s denial of the husband’s petition for modification of child support when the husband did not take advantage of available job opportunities, undertook only a limited job search, and voluntarily chose…
-
Cam-La, Inc. v. Fixel, 632 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…Ltd. v. Zaun Equip., Inc., 350 So. 2d 539, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Service is not vitiated by the registered agent’s failure to give the corporation notice that it had received suit papers on its behalf. Leasefirst v. Allied Mach, of S. Fla., Inc., 597 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In the instant case, Cam-La designated Garfield as its registered agent as required by sections 48.091(1) and 607-0501(1), Florida Statutes (1989). This authorized Garfield to receive service of process on behalf of Cam-La. See…
-
Whitney v. Drue Leslye Whitney, 624 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…oubtedly view the license as an additional qualification.4 In addition, the CPA license would have enabled Mr. Whitney to make attempts to acquire additional employment; i.e., preparing tax returns to supplement his income. See Robinson v. Robinson, 597 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Conklin v. Conklin, 551 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Because the record contains substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court’s order, I am unable to conclude that the court abused its discretion and would affi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1964)
- Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)
- Sw. Cycle Sales, Inc. v. Gold KEY Mktg., Inc., 265 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)