BARRINGTON HUMPHREY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., 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.
Barrington Humphrey successfully challenged a circuit court order that quashed service of process in a mortgage foreclosure suit but also directed him to provide his current address to Deutsche Bank. The appellate court reversed the address-disclosure directive, holding that without proper personal jurisdiction, the court had no authority to order Humphrey to do anything.
The court reversed the order insofar as it directed Humphrey to furnish his address to the Bank, holding that without proper service and personal jurisdiction, the court had no power or authority to direct Humphrey to do anything.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to enter a personal order against a defendant absent proper service of process or a statutorily permitted alternative.
[2] A court that has quashed service of process on a defendant lacks the authority to compel that defendant to provide their address to the plaintiff.
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“Without proper service, the court never secured personal jurisdiction over Humphrey and, thus, had no power over him. That being so, the court had no authority to direct Humphrey to do anything.”
Establishes the core holding that lack of personal jurisdiction strips the court of all authority to order the defendant to do anything
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeutsche Bank National Trust Co. filed a mortgage foreclosure suit against Barrington Humphrey. Humphrey moved to quash service of process. The circui…
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 Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Barrington Humphrey is the named defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. On Humphrey’s motion, the circuit court quashed the service of process on him. In its order, the circuit court also directed Humphrey to provide his current address to the Bank. Humphrey challenges this provision on appeal. The Bank has neither appealed the quashal of service nor filed an answer brief in response to Humphrey’s appeal. We treat this case as an appeal from a nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We reverse.
Without proper service, the court never secured personal jurisdiction over Humphrey and, thus, had no power over him. That being so, the court had no authority to direct Humphrey to do anything. See Riddick v. Suncoast Beauty Coll., Inc., 570 So.2d 1064, 1065-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversing injunction entered against individuals not named in suit or served); see *1020 also Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Brown, 761 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“If the court is to exercise its power over a person it must have jurisdiction over that individual.... In the absence of personal service or a statutorily permitted alternative, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a personal judgment against the defendant”). In Alger v. Peters, 88 So.2d 903 (Fla.1956), the Florida Supreme Court explained the necessity of personal jurisdiction:
[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree. If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen [to that extent an empty threat], and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. It is not vested with sovereign powers to declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whom it gets personal service....
Id. at 907 (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 882, 832-33 (2d Cir.1930) (Hand, J.)).
We reverse the order quashing service insofar as it directed Humphrey to furnish his address to the Bank.
Reversed in part.
DAVIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fountainbleau, LLC v. Hire US, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…tive relief."). In that respect, it seems evident that in order to apply and enforce a statute of this state the court must first determine that it has jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.2 See Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 113 So. 3d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]he court never secured personal jurisdiction over Humphrey and, thus, had no power over him. That being so, the court had no authority to direct Humphrey to do anything."); cf. Johns v. Taramita, 132 F. Supp. 2d 102…
-
Abdo v. Khalil Abdo (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…the Websites were allegedly transferred. Because the court had no jurisdiction over Social Media, Inc. Ltd. and Social Media Ltd. LLC, the constructive trust cannot bind those entities or their assets. See Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 113 So. 3d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree." (altera…
-
Abdo v. Khalil Abdo (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…the Websites were allegedly transferred. Because the court had no jurisdiction over Social Media, Inc. Ltd. and Social Media Ltd. LLC, the constructive trust cannot bind those entities or their assets. See Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 113 So. 3d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree." (altera…
Authorities Cited
- Mason W. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1956)
- Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Lakeisha Brown, 761 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ogelean Riddick & Suncoast Beauty Sch. of Fla., Inc. v. Suncoast Beauty Coll., Inc., 570 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)