MC TRUST
v.
COHEN DE MISHAAN

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-04-03
No. 18-0211
273 So. 3d 1065 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019)

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.


Holding

A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has insufficient minimum contacts with Florida and where the plaintiff fails to establish that the actionable tort was committed in the state.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Florida to establish personal jurisdiction.

[2] A Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is not a resident of Florida unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant committed an actionable tort…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Steven Mishaan, as trustee of MC Trust, sued Solita Cohen de Mishaan, individually and as trustee of MC Trust, in Miami-Dade County circuit court. Sol…

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Mishaan (“Steven”), as trustee and on behalf of MC Trust, appeals a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his action against Solita Cohen de Mishaan (“Solita”), individually and as trustee of MC Trust, for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.1 We affirm.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Solita because she is not a resident of Florida and because Steven failed to meet his burden of establishing that she had the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Florida or that the alleged actionable tort was committed in Florida. Upon our review of the evidentiary hearing transcript and the record on appeal, we agree. See § 48.193(2), Fla. Stat. (2017); § 736.0202(2), Fla. Stat. (2017); Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989);

Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 730, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).2 Affirmed.

Footnotes
1 Because we affirm the trial court’s order on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, we do not reach the merits of the forum non conveniens issue. 2 We affirm without comment the other issues raised on appeal.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw