MELINDA FRY AND BRENTWOOD SOUTHERN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALCHLE INVESTMENT 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for evidentiary hearing because factual disputes regarding an alleged oral brokerage contract could not be reconciled on the record.
When factual disputes in affidavits and depositions regarding jurisdiction cannot be reconciled, an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine personal jurisdiction.
[1] When affidavits and depositions contain irreconcilable factual disputes regarding personal jurisdiction, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than r…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWIG, a Florida brokerage company, sued Arizona residents Fry and Brentwood for breach of an alleged oral contract to pay a brokerage commission for pr…
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 Oral Contract Formation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from an appealable non-final order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because we find that the factual disputes in the affidavits and the deposition cannot be reconciled, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction over Appellants pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989).
Appellee, “WIG”, the plaintiff below, is a brokerage company located in Florida. Appellants, defendants below, are residents of Arizona. Appellee filed suit against Appellants for breach of an oral contract under which Appellants would pay Appellee a brokerage commission if it procured a buyer for Appellants’ Arizona mobile home park. Appellants deny the existence of this contract. According to Appellee, the oral contract dictated that WIG would be paid its commission in Florida. However, Appellants contend that they always intended that any commission for the sale of the property would be paid at closing in Arizona. Based on these factual disputes, we remand for an evidentiary hearing and direct the trial court to determine whether an oral contract was reached, and, if so, where the parties intended for closing costs to be paid.
WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne Marie Balboa v. Assante, 958 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…the affidavits were conflicting on the jurisdictional issue of the existence of a contract, ordered the trial court to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue. Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502. See also Fry v. Walchle Inv. Group, Inc., 712 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (limited evidentiary hearing required where plaintiff sued on oral contract and non-resident defendant denied entering into contract). We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to de…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)