GENE MASON, ELAINE MASON, APEX ENERGY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM A. HUNTON, 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.
Defendants appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the trial court erred in finding they waived the jurisdictional defense by filing pleadings and requesting document production. The appellate court reversed, holding that filing a notice of appearance, asserting other defenses, and requesting discovery do not constitute a waiver of personal jurisdiction absent a request for affirmative relief.
Defendants did not waive their personal jurisdiction defense. Filing a notice of appearance by counsel, even with language requesting future documentation be sent to counsel, does not constitute a waiver. Similarly, asserting other defenses and requesting discovery germane to the jurisdictional issue do not waive the defense absent a request for affirmative relief from the court.
[1] A notice of appearance by counsel, even with additional language requesting future documentation, does not constitute a waiver of the defense of personal jurisdiction.
[2] A party may join multiple defenses in a motion without waiving any of them, including the defense of personal jurisdiction.
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“Filing a notice of appearance by counsel does not constitute a waiver of personal jurisdiction.”
Establishes the primary holding that a notice of appearance alone does not waive the jurisdictional defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Gene Mason, Elaine Mason, Apex Energy, and others were sued in Florida. They filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction ba…
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 Evidentiary Hearing On Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
The defendants, Gene Mason, Elaine Mason, Apex Energy, etc., et al., appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The transcript of the hearing on the motion indicates that the trial court denied the motion because the defendants waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction by filing pleadings including a request for production of documents.
One of the pleadings upon which the trial court relied in denying the motion was a notice of appearance by counsel for the defendants that stated: “Counsel requests that all notices, pleadings, correspondence, discovery requests and other documentation directed towards this Defendant be provided to the undersigned Counsel on their behalf.” The defendants also filed their motion to dismiss alleging lack of personal jurisdiction based upon non-residency, failure to attach documentation which was the subject of plaintiffs claim of breach of contract, failure to allege the basis of the action with specificity, and failure to allege facts supporting the cause of action. The defendants further requested production of documents and submitted affidavits in support of their claim that they were non-residents of Florida.
Filing a notice of appearance by counsel does not constitute a waiver of personal jurisdiction. Public Gas Co. v. Weatherhead Co., 409 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla.1982). Although counsel for defendants in the instant case added some language to this notice, the language added nothing more than a request that all future documentation be sent to him.
Rule 1.140(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure specifically allows joinder of multiple defenses in a motion without waiving any of them. A party is free to assert defenses or take other defensive actions in a motion while maintaining a personal jurisdiction defense. M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. Bergamo Da Silva, 592 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) It is only when a party requests affirmative relief from the court that personal jurisdiction is waived. See Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (assertion of a joint venture is a defense and not a request for affirmative relief); Heineken v. Heineken, 683 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (request for attorney’s fees incurred while asserting defense of personal jurisdiction does not constitute a request for affirmative relief which would waive the defense); cf. Department of Revenue ex rel. Godoy v. Castro, 786 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (defendant’s motion for blood test in paternity action was a request for affirmative relief waiving defense of personal jurisdiction because defendant asked court to accept jurisdiction in order to take an action which could determine the case on the merits in his favor). A request for affirmative relief was not made in the instant case.
The defendants were entitled to engage in discovery regarding the issue of jurisdiction and we find their request for production of documents to be germane to that issue. See Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282, 1283-1284 (Fla.1992).
We vacate the order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989).
ORDER VACATED.
SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMAHON v. Janice M.A. Ryan, 964 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…firmative relief because requesting such relief is inconsistent with an initial defense of a lack of personal jurisdiction, there was no waiver in this case. See Alvarado v. Cisneros, 919 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Mason v. Hunton, 816 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). While it is true that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void, bankruptcy courts are authorized to validate such actions by retroactively annulling the stay when the circumstances warrant such relief. See…
-
Rafaelita J. Edwards v. Codrington, 325 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…he trial court erroneously concluded that Edwards sought affirmative relief in her pro se answer. If a litigant requests affirmative relief in her responsive pleading, then she consents to personal jurisdiction. See id. § 48.193(4); Mason v. Hunton, 816 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Florida’s longarm statute describes affirmative relief as “causes of action unrelated to the transaction forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” § 48.193(4), Fla. Stat.; see Sampson Farm Ltd. P’ship v. Parmenter, 238…
-
Horton v. Horton, 179 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ls from orders determining "the jurisdiction ’ of . the person,” . and rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a., which permits non-final appeals from orders in family law matters determining "the right to immediate monetary relief.” . See, e.g., Mason v. Hunton, 816 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
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
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Pub. GAS Co. v. Weatherhead Co., 409 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1982)
- Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Heineken v. Heineken, 683 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1992)
- M.T.B. Banking Corp. v. da Silva, 592 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Castro, 786 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)