DANZAS TAIWAN, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
LEWIS B. FREEMAN, AS RECEIVER OF UNIQUE GEMS INT'L CORP. AND LUCY MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2003-05-14
No. 3D01-2842
Before COPE, FLETCHER and RAMIREZ, JJ.
868 So. 2d 537 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Danzas Taiwan, a Taiwanese freight forwarder, appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed, holding that no cause of action exists under Florida's fraudulent conveyance statute against a party who merely assists in a fraudulent transfer without receiving the transferred property.


Holding

The court reversed and held that there is no cause of action under the fraudulent conveyance statute against a party who merely assists a debtor in a fraudulent transfer without coming into possession of the property. Therefore, the trial court lacked a valid basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Danzas Taiwan, and the case must be dismissed.


Headnotes

[1] A party cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state for committing a tortious act within that state if the alleged tortious act does not give rise to a cause of…

[2] There is no cause of action against a party who allegedly assists in a fraudulent transfer of property if that party does not come into possession of the property.

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

Key Quotes

“there is no cause of action under the fraudulent conveyance statute against one "who allegedly assists a debtor in a fraudulent conversion or transfer of property, where the person does not come into possession of the property."”

Establishes the controlling legal standard that eliminates the basis for personal jurisdiction

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed suit against Danzas Taiwan and other defendants alleging conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers. Danzas Taiwan is a Taiwanese frei…

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.


Opinion of the Court
COPE, J.

COPE, J.

Danzas Taiwan, Ltd., appeals the denial of its motion to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. After careful consideration, we conclude that the order must be reversed.

Plaintiffs-appellees filed an action against Danzas Taiwan and other defendants. The complaint alleges that Danzas Taiwan, a Taiwanese freight forwarder, engaged in conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers.

Danzas Taiwan moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, and Danzas Taiwan has appealed.

One theory argued by the plaintiffs in support of personal jurisdiction was the claim that Danzas Taiwan had committed a tortious act within the State of Florida. During the pendency of this appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal announced Bankfirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Inc., 842 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Fifth District held that there is no cause of action under the fraudulent conveyance statute against one “who allegedly assists a debtor in a fraudulent conversion or transfer of property, where the person does not come into possession of the property.” Id. at 155 (citations omitted). The same conclusion also follows from this court’s recent decision in Beta Real Corporation v. Graham, 839 So. 2d 890, 892 n. 3 (Fla.3d DCA 2003). See also Tropin v. First Union National Bank, No. 00-4485-Civ-Ungaro-Benages (S.D.Fla. Mar. 25, 2002) (order granting defendant’s motion to reconsider order); Freeman v. First Union National Bank, No. 00-2013-Civ-Ungaro-Benages (S.D.Fla. Jan. 2, 2002) (order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss).

The alleged fraudulent transfers in this case were between Unique Gems International Corporation and a related company, Pearls and Gems. There is no allegation that Danzas Taiwan is a recipient of fraudulently conveyed assets. The freight forwarder only received fees for services rendered in forwarding freight.

It follows that there can be no jurisdiction over Danzas Taiwan for commission of a tortious act in Florida because there is no cause of action against Danzas Taiwan for conspiracy to engage in fraudulent transfers. Bankfirst; see also Beta Real. As there is no cause of action, it is apparent that on remand there must be a dismissal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(a). We therefore need not consider the plaintiffs alternative arguments regarding personal jurisdiction.

We do not fault the trial court for its ruling in this matter because the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent Bankfirst and Beta Real decisions.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Super Vision Int'l, Inc. v. Mega Int'l Commercial Bank Co., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
    …ch a creditor may bring suit against a non-transferee party (like First Union in this case) for monetary damages arising from the non-transferee party’s alleged aiding-abetting of a fraudulent money transfer.”); Danzas Taiwan, Ltd. v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 537, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“[T]here is no cause of action under the fraudulent conveyance statute against one ‘who allegedly assists a debtor in a fraudulent conversion or transfer of property, where the person does not come into possession of the pro…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw