MANUEL J. DANS AND ROSE DANS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GRAN HABANA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
In this interlocutory appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying defendants' motion to quash service of process and motion to dissolve a writ of attachment in a breach of contract case involving a restaurant business purchase. The court held that the defendants' preliminary business activities in Florida constituted engaging in a business venture, establishing proper jurisdiction, and that attachment was valid even though the debt was not yet due because the defendants were removing property from the state.
The court held that the defendants' actions—opening a bank account, signing a purchase contract, applying for a beverage license, and assuming a lease—constituted engaging in a business venture rather than mere preparation for doing business, thereby establishing proper service of process jurisdiction. The court also held that attachment was valid under Florida Statutes § 76.05(1) because the creditor showed the debtors were actually removing property out of the state, even though the debt was not yet due.
[1] Engaging in a business venture in Florida, as evidenced by opening a bank account, signing a contract to purchase a business, applying for a license, and executing a leas…
[2] A writ of attachment may be issued on a debt not yet due if the debtor is actually removing their property out of the state.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We think that the trial judge correctly held that these actions amounted to an engaging in a business venture.”
The court's holding that the defendants' preliminary activities constituted sufficient business engagement to establish jurisdiction in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants (Dans) entered into a contract to purchase a restaurant business in Miami, Florida from the appellee (Gran Habana Restaurant and Lounge…
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 Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is from an order denying the defendants’ motion to *158quash service of process and denying defendants’ motion to dissolve a writ of attachment. The complaint reveals that the appellee seeks damages for appellants’ breach of a contract to purchase from ap-pellee a restaurant business in Miami, Florida.
The process and return of service are not included in the record before this court but the trial judge found: “* * * the plaintiff and defendants have each filed affidavits setting forth the facts justifying the service of process in accordance with §§ 46.161 [48.161] and 48.181, F.S.A. * * Appellants’ point on appeal directed to the denial of their motion to quash service urges that there was an insufficient showing that appellants were doing business in this state. An examination of the affidavits shows that appellants had (1) opened a bank account in a Miami bank; (2) signed a contract to purchase a restaurant business; (3) applied for an alcoholic beverage license; (4) executed a document assuming a lease to the restaurant premises. Appellant describes all of these acts as “preparation for doing business.” We think that the trial judge correctly held that these actions amounted to an engaging in a business venture. See Wm. E. Strasser Construction Corp. v. Linn, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 458; Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619; O’Connell v. Loach, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 350; Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733; Matthews v. Matthews, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 571.
Appellants’ point directed to the denial of their motion to dissolve the attachment urges only that the attachment was invalid because, “there is no debt shown to be actually due.” Appellee’s affidavit on the other hand avers that the alleged debtors were about to remove their property out of the state. Florida Statutes § 76.05(1), F.S.A. provides “Any creditor may have an attachment on a debt not due, when the debtor: (1) Is actually removing his property out of the state * * * ”
The points presented upon this interlocutory appeal do not present reversible error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stenocomp, Inc. v. Automated Word Processing, Inc., 345 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wm. E. Strasser Construction Corporation v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1957); Dans v. Gran Habana Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 244 So. 2d 157 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Ralph & Reba, Inc., 254 So. 2d 49 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).…
-
Gaynor Hill Enters., Inc. v. Allan Enters., LLC, 113 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…(holding that purchase of orange grove was a business venture under substitute service statute, and listing the grove with a real estate broker was a transaction connected with or incidental to the venture); Dans v. Gran Habana Rest. & Lounge, Inc., 244 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (holding that signing of contract to purchase restaurant business was one of several activities that, taken together, amounted to engaging in a business venture). Next, the trial court erred in concluding that substitute service…
Authorities Cited
- WM. E. Strasser Constr. Corp. v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1957)
- 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)
- Matthews v. Olive M. Matthews, 122 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Pepper v. State, 203 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)