ELTING CENTER CORPORATION, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVERSIFIED TITLE CORP., 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.
Elting Center Corporation appeals a trial court's decision denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court had ruled it had jurisdiction over Elting based on service of process upon C & H Enterprises, Inc., alleged to be in joint venture with Elting. The appellate court reversed, holding that service upon one joint venture member does not confer jurisdiction over another member.
Service of process upon one member of a joint venture is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over another member of the joint venture. A joint venture is not a legal entity in the same sense as a partnership, and statutes concerning service of process must be strictly construed.
[1] Service of process upon one member of a joint venture is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over another member of the same joint venture.
[2] Statutes governing service of process upon non-residents must be strictly construed.
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“statutes involving service of process upon non-residents must be accorded a strict construction”
Establishes the principle that jurisdictional statutes must be narrowly interpreted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed an amended complaint naming Elting Center Corporation (Alabama) and C & H Enterprises, Inc. (Florida) as joint venturers. Service of pr…
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 Legal Entity Status cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by the trial court finding that the court has jurisdiction over its person by virtue of service of process effectuated upon another corporation allegedly engaged in a joint venture with the appellant. The appellee filed an amended complaint against the appellant, Elting Center Corporation, an Alabama corporation, and C & H Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, as joint venturers.
Service of process was carried out only upon an agent of C & H Enterprises, Inc. Thereafter, the court granted Elting’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over its person. Upon re-hearing, however, the court reversed itself and ruled that the court had jurisdiction over the appellant because of the service made upon C & H Enterprises, Inc. The court relied upon the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Largay Enterprises, Inc. v. Berman, Fla. 1952, 61 So. 2d 366, and this court’s decision in Heritage Corp. of So. Fla. v. Apartment Invest., Inc., Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 629.
It was the court’s view, and it is the appellee’s position, that a “joint venture” is the same as a “partnership” or a “limited partnership” for purposes of Fla.Stat. §§ 48.061(1) and 620.30, F.S.A. concerning service of process upon partnerships.
However, we note that statutes involving service of process upon non-residents must be accorded a strict construction. Fleischman v. Morris, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 278; Lipman v. Zuk, Fla.App. 1970, 244 So. 496; Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.1965, 176 So. 2d 903.
Moreover, a joint venture is not a legal entity in the same sense of a partnership, even though the distinction is often, blurred. See, 46 Am.Jur.2d, Joint Ventures § 4, and cases cited therein.
From our reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Largay Enterprises, Inc. v. Berman, supra, we conclude that service of process upon one member of a joint enterprise is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over another member under the law of this state.
Therefore, in light of our determination of this case it is unnecessary to consider other points raised by the appellant in its brief.
For the reasons assigned, the order appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the amended complaint as it pertains to the appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diversified Title Corp. v. Elting Ctr. Corp., 321 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 306 So. 2d 542. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, J., dissents.…
-
Waterfront Developers, Inc. v. The City OF Miami Beach, 467 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…r joint venturers, to be parties to the action. Deal Farms, Inc., v. Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc., 382 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Aronovitz v. Stein Properties, 322 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Elting Center Corporation v. Diversified Title Corp. 306 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). To maintain an action as a citizen-taxpayer, special injury, apart from that suffered by the citizenry as a whole, must be alleged, Godheim v. City of Tampa, 426 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Paul v. Blake, 376 So. 2d 256 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- O'Neill v. Adams, 176 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1965)
- Largay Enters. Inc. v. Berman, 61 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1952)
- Fleischman v. Morris, 260 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Casper v. Stone, 285 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)