W. DAVID TALLMADGE, APPELLANT,
v.
MORTGAGE FINANCE GROUP, INC., 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract action by a Florida mortgage broker against a California property owner for unpaid brokerage fees. The court held that the defendant's contacts with Florida—sending a loan application, check, and brokerage contract to the broker's Florida office—were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
The court held that the defendant's contacts with Florida were sufficient to satisfy both due process requirements and Florida's long-arm statute (section 48.193(1)(g)), establishing personal jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. The court reasoned that it is reasonable to expect a party hiring an agent under these circumstances to be subject to suit in the state where the agent is located.
[1] A Florida court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who sends a loan application, check, and brokerage contract to a Florida mortgage broker for services related t…
[2] Sending a loan application, check, and brokerage contract to a Florida resident for services constitutes sufficient minimum Florida contact to support personal jurisdicti…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Construing any conflict in the parties' affidavits and proof most favorably to Appellant, the unrefuted portion of Plaintiffs allegations demonstrate sufficient minimum Florida contact to support jurisdiction.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's finding that minimum contacts existed to support jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee, a Florida mortgage broker, sued Appellant, a California property owner, for nonpayment of a brokerage fee for obtaining refinancing on Appel…
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 Procuring Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Construing any conflict in the parties’ affidavits and proof most favorably to Appellant, the unrefuted portion of Plaintiffs allegations demonstrate sufficient minimum Florida contact to support jurisdiction.
Appellee is a Florida mortgage broker suing for nonpayment of a fee earned in obtaining refinancing of a mortgage on Appellant’s California property. The closing occurred in California. Although the parties’ affidavits conflict concerning which party initially contacted the other, it is undisputed that after telephone communication, Appellant sent a loan application, a check, and a brokerage contract to Appellee’s office in Florida and that the broker then contacted the lender. The brokerage contract provided that the fee would be paid out of the closing proceeds. The undisputed facts are sufficient to satisfy both due process considerations and long arm jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.-193(l)(g), Florida Statutes, on Appellee’s breach of contract claim for failing to pay the fee. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989); Klein v. Federated Builders, Inc., 616 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Laser Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. C.E.S. Indus., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Orlow v. Fiber-Seal Int’l., Inc., 613 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Indus. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assocs., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Ben M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Requiring Appellant to answer Appellee’s claim does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. It is reasonable to conclude that a party hiring an agent under these circumstances would expect to be haled into court in this state on a breach of contract claim for nonpayment.
Although not cited by either party, we recognize that this opinion may be construed as conflicting with our opinion in Seville Fin. Inc. v. Nationwide Mktg. Assocs., Inc., 488 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), in which a contrary result was reached under somewhat similar circumstances. However, subsequent to Seville, the supreme court recognized, in Venetian Salami that retaining a Florida agent to perform services in this state is sufficient to meet due process concerns in an action for nonpayment for the services performed here.
We also recognize that disputed issues still must be resolved in this case, not the least of which is whether Appellee was in fact the procuring cause of the loan or, as Appellant claims, whether Appellant obtained the loan from the same lender independently of Ap-pellee’s efforts. However, this is the ultimate liability issue to be determined upon a final hearing. Since the affidavits and proof before the court were sufficient to support jurisdiction notwithstanding the remaining conflict, unlike the circumstances in Venetian Salami nothing is to be gained here by requiring an additional evidentiary hearing.
DELL, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wash. Cap. Corp. & Jack Wolgin v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc., 695 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…establish compliance with subsection 48.193(l)(g), the subsection upon which it relied as to WCC, required the granting of the motion to dismiss as to WCC. See Venetian Salami Une Ardco, 685 So. 2d at 30; cf. Tallmadge v. Mortgage Fin. Group, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). As to Wolgin, plaintiff argues that Wolgin was subject to Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 48.193(l)(f)l. Subsection 48.193(l)(f)l states in pertinent part that a defendant causing injury to persons or pro…
-
Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling, 123 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…S Transport Inc. v. Agri-Source Fuels LLC, 37 So. 3d 349, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Bohlander v. Robert Dean Assocs. Yacht Brokerage, Inc., 920 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). For example, in Tallmadge v. Mortgage Finance Group, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this Court found a California resident to have exhibited sufficient “minimum contacts” to satisfy due process after he contracted with a Florida mortgage broker to obtain refinancing of a mortgage on his California property, and…
-
Corporacion Aero Angeles, S.A. v. Jaime Gaston Fernandez & Fernandez Aviation, LLC, 69 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ay a broker commission to expect to be haled into court in Florida. Here, however, the jet was not located in Florida, nor did the closing occur in Florida, and thus Stomar is distinguishable on its facts. Tallmadge v. Mortgage Finance Group, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), [*300] is factually a closer ease. There, a California resident sought mortgage refinancing on his home. He contacted a Florida mortgage broker and sent a deposit and signed contract to the broker in Florida. The broker then fou…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- BEN M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Indus. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assocs., Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Laser Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. C.E.S. Indus., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Seville Fin., Inc. v. Nationwide Mktg. Assocs., Inc., 488 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Harvey and Barbara Klein v. Federated Builders, Inc., 616 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Orlow v. Fiber-Seal Int'l, Inc., 613 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)