JULIO E. POLO, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCELA POLO, 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.
Julio Polo appeals a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss his wife's petition to domesticate a Venezuelan divorce judgment and enforce a property settlement agreement. The court affirms the trial court's personal jurisdiction over Polo based on his breach of contract in Florida, but dismisses his appeal regarding service-of-process defects as not appealable.
The court affirms the trial court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over Julio Polo under Florida's long-arm statute based on his breach of the property settlement agreement in Florida. However, the court dismisses the appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss insofar as it raised service-of-process defects, as such rulings are not appealable non-final orders.
[1] A breach of contract occurring in Florida subjects a party to long-arm in personam jurisdiction under Section 48.193(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provided such assertion of j…
[2] An order denying a motion to dismiss based on the failure to serve process within 120 days of filing the petition is not an appealable non-final order under Fla.R.App.P. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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 husband's acts constitute a breach of contract in Florida which subjects the husband to long-arm in personam jurisdiction under Section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1993), which assertion of such jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice under the circumstances of this case”
Establishes the basis for personal jurisdiction over the husband for his breach of the property settlement agreement occurring in Florida
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarcela Polo filed a petition to domesticate a final Venezuelan family court judgment incorporating a property settlement agreement between the spouse…
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 Breach Of Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband Julio E. Polo from a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss the wife Marcela Polo’s petition (a) to domesticate a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, incorporating a property settlement agreement involving the parties herein, entered by a family court in Venezuela, (b) to find the husband in contempt for breaching the property settlement agreement in Florida when he conveyed certain realty in Florida to the wife subject to a substantial mortgage, which mortgage the husband failed to disclose to the wife or the Venezuelan court, in violation of the subject property settlement agreement which required that the husband make the subject conveyance to the wife free and clear of any encumbrances, and (c) to award the wife damages for the husband’s breach of the property settlement agreement.
We affirm the order under review insofar as the husband’s motion to dismiss challenged the trial court’s in personam jurisdiction over the husband. Clearly, the husband’s acts constitute a breach of contract in Florida which subjects the husband to long-arm in personam jurisdiction under Section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1993), which assertion of such jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice under the circumstances of this case. High Country Ins. Agency v. Administrative Management Servs. Syndicate, Ltd., 549 So. 2d 776 (Fla.1989); 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).
We decline to consider the husband’s claim that the initial process and pleading herein were not served on the husband within 120 days after the filing of the petition in the circuit court in violation of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i). The non-final order denying the husband’s motion to dismiss based on this claim is not an appealable non-final order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) and the husband’s appeal from that aspect of the order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A, 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); DCA of Hialeah, Inc. v. Lago Grande One Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Cole v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Contra Comisky v. Rosen Management Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (en banc) (7-4 decision).
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waxoyl v. Taylor, 711 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…it within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(I) (1995).3 That issue cannot be raised by interlocutory appeal, see Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and we decline to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). For the reasons stated, the order under review is affirmed. . The other d…
-
Thomas v. Silvers, 701 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…able non-final order, as it does not fall within one of the enumerated categories under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). See Novella Land, Inc. v. Panama City Beach Office Park, Ltd., 662 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), disagreed with on other grounds by Cannon v. Yager, 658 So. 2d 591…
-
S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…Accord Roofcraft Int’l, Inc. v. Thomas, 677 So. 2d 39, 39-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); King v. Odle, 665 So. 2d 378, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); George J. Karr, D.D.S. v. Sellers, 620 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. Kadivar, 482 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th D…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Berge O. Khandjian and Tuula Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Comisky v. Rosen Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sanford H. Cole, M.D. v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Diaz v. State, 559 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- High Country Ins. Agency v. Admin. Mgmt. Servs. Syndicate, Ltd., 549 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Jack S.D. Abraham and Simon S. Abraham v. S.N.W. Corp., 549 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)