LOMAS & NETTLETON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALL COVERAGE UNDERWRITERS, INC., 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.
A Delaware finance corporation challenged Florida's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it for a breach of contract action related to mortgage brokerage services. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the corporation's motion to dismiss and motion to quash service of process, holding that the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to be subject to the state's long-arm statute.
The defendant was subject to Florida's long-arm statute and the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction. The defendant was either engaged in 'doing business' in Florida or, at minimum, engaged in a 'business venture' within the state, both of which support jurisdiction under the statute.
“The question for our determination is whether or not the defendant had such "minimum contacts" with Florida as to be amenable to the provisions of the Long Arm Statute.”
States the central legal issue regarding personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLomas & Nettleton Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its sole office in Dallas, Texas, was sued by All Coverage Underwriters, Inc. for…
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 Business Venture cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Lomas & Nettleton Finance Corporation, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss and motion to quash service of process in a suit brought by the plaintiff, All Coverage Underwriters, Inc.
Plaintiff filed suit based on an alleged breach by defendant of a mortgage brokerage contract. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, a Delaware corporation with its sole office in Dallas, Texas, was engaged in business in Florida so as to come within F.S.A. § 47.16, the so-called Long Arm Statute.
Service of process was made upon the Secretary of State of the State of Florida pursuant to F.S.A. § 47.30. Defendant, claiming it was not doing business in Florida, challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction by motions to dismiss and quash service. After hearing the trial court denied these motions and defendant appealed.
The question for our determination is whether or not the defendant had such “minimum contacts” with Florida as to be amenable to the provisions of the Long Arm Statute. Lake Erie Chemical Company v. Stinson, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 587.
We find that defendant was doing business in Florida. The record shows that on at least two occasions defendant was engaged in financing the construction of improvements to real estate in Florida. In each instance the mortgages were to be serviced by the defendant’s wholly owned subsidiary with offices in Miami. The resident vice president of the subsidiary, which acted as a mortgage broker, was also an assistant secretary of the defendant.
There is an even broader ground for finding the defendant subject to the terms of the Long Arm Statute. F.S.A. § 47.16 also provides for substituted service where a foreign corporation is engaged in a “business venture” within the state. This criterion can be met by a lesser involvement than that required for “doing business.” Steel Joist Institute, Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 625.
Measured by the standards enunciated by the Florida courts, defendant was engaged in a “business venture” with plaintiff in Florida. See: State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619; Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Company, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733; Oxley v. Zmistowski, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 186.
A recent Florida Supreme Court decision might suggest a retreat from the standards applied above. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Simari, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 427. A closer view reveals that the court in Simari found that *566the transaction leading to litigation did not arise from the in-state activities of the foreign corporation as required by F.S.A. §§ 47.17 and 47.171. That case is inapplicable here in that there can be no question but that plaintiff’s suit arose out of defendant’s Florida business activity which was mortgage financing.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. B. L. Realty Corp. v. Cohl, 384 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…s a significant difference between a “business” and a “business venture”. The latter may be established by showing a lesser involvement than would be required to prove the former. Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., 200 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th . DCA 1967). This distinction was highlighted by the court in State ex rel. Weber v. Register, 67 So. 2d 619, 620 (Fla.1953): There is a vast difference between the words “a business” and the words “business venture” as used in Section 47…
-
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Cebeck, 505 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…nt fails to allege facts subjecting appellant to jurisdiction under the “solicitation or service activities” requirements of section 48.-193(l)(f)l. Appellee’s reliance on Lomas and Nettleton Financial Corporation v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., 200 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), is misplaced for two reasons: first, Lomas was not decided under section 48.193(l)(f)l; and second, the corporate defendant in that case was found to be “doing business” in Florida (under the statutory predecessor to section 48.…
-
Wash. Star Syndicate, Inc. v. Wright, 313 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…o. 2d 619 and applied in Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Company, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 733; Oxley v. Zmistowski, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So. 2d 186; Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. v. All Coverage Underwriters, Inc., Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 564. In addition, the finding of a trial judge that the defendant was engaged in business or in a business venture in the State of Florida is supported by the fact that the collection of the material to be distributed was done in Florida, payments for t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Inv. Enters., Inc. v. The Ky. Co., Inc., 160 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- State ex rel. Weber et ux. v. Register, 67 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1953)
- Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Simari, 191 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1966)
- John T. Oxley and his wife v. Zmistowski, 128 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Lake Erie Chem. Co. v. Stinson, 181 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Steel Joist Inst., Inc. v. J. H. Mann, III, Inc., 171 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)