VENCAP, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, RALPH WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A VENTURA CAPITAL HOLDINGS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MCDONALD SECURITY CORPORATION, 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.
Vencap, Inc. and Ralph Williams challenged a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract case. The appellate court reversed, holding that McDonald Security Corporation failed to establish a basis for long-arm jurisdiction under Florida law because the contracts did not require performance in Florida and McDonald provided no affidavit to support jurisdictional allegations.
The court reversed the trial court's order, holding that long-arm jurisdiction was not established because the contracts did not require performance in Florida, and even if they did, McDonald's failure to provide an affidavit after the defendants challenged jurisdiction with a legally sufficient affidavit required dismissal.
[1] A court must first consider whether the complaint alleges a basis for jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
[2] Florida's long-arm statute subjects a person to jurisdiction for breaching a contract in Florida by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in th…
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“In determining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists, a court must first consider whether the complaint alleges a basis for jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2001).”
Establishes the initial inquiry required to determine long-arm jurisdiction under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDonald Security Corporation, a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Wyoming, sued Vencap, Inc., Ralph Williams, and Ventura Capital Holdings (none…
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 Florida Long Arm Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
The appellants, Vencap, Inc., Ralph Williams, and Ventura Capital Holdings, challenge the trial court’s nonfinal order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the record fails to show a basis for long-arm jurisdiction, we reverse.
The appellee, McDonald Security Corporation, is a Minnesota corporation with its headquarters in Wyoming. McDonald sued the appellants alleging, among other things, that the appellants had breached contracts to sell McDonald 400,000 shares of stock in a California corporation. None of the appellants are Florida residents. Nevertheless, McDonald alleged that the appellants had submitted themselves to jurisdiction in Florida because they had breached the contracts by failing to perform acts required by the contracts to be performed in Florida. The alleged breaches occurred when the appellants failed to register the stock before mailing the certificates to McDonald’s president at his winter home in Florida.
In determining whether long-arm jurisdiction exists, a court must first consider whether the complaint alleges a basis for jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2001). Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989). McDonald alleged that Florida had jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (2001). Section 48.193(l)(g) provides that any person who breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state subjects themself to the jurisdiction of Florida’s courts. We agree with the appellants that McDonald’s complaint did not sufficiently allege jurisdiction because the contracts, copies of which were attached to the complaint, did not require them to perform any act in this state. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted the appellants’ motion to dismiss.
Even if we were to agree with McDonald’s interpretation of the contracts, we would still conclude that the complaint should have been dismissed. A defendant wishing to contest jurisdiction may file an affidavit challenging the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint or raising the issue of lack of minimum contacts. Id. The appellants filed an affidavit that was legally sufficient to contest the jurisdictional allegations in McDonald’s complaint. The burden then shifted to McDonald to prove by affidavit the basis for long-arm jurisdiction. Id. McDonald, however, failed to provide an affidavit. See Tobacco Merchants Ass’n of U.S. v. Broin, 657 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that where a defendant contests jurisdiction with a legally sufficient affidavit and the plaintiff fails to provide sworn proof as to the basis of jurisdiction, the trial court must grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss).
Reversed.
NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilles Rollet v. Gwenaelle de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…his burden has shifted7, “[i]f no such sworn proof is forthcoming from the plaintiff as to the basis for jurisdiction, the trial court must grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Id. (emphasis added). See also Vencap, Inc. v. McDonald Sec. Corp., 827 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Horowitz v. Rose Printing Co., Inc., 664 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Williams v. Martin, 595 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). It is undisputed that Rollet filed an affidavit contesting the allegations of personal jurisdiction…
-
Reese W. Waugh and George J. Othon v. Philpot, 868 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…vit that [*701] is legally sufficient to challenge the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis for long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant. Vencap, Inc. v. McDonald Sec. Corp., 827 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, the Appellants filed such legally sufficient affidavits, and the Appellees failed to file any sworn proof showing the basis for long-arm jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, the trial court was obligated to grant the…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v. Villata (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)