GORDON BOYD ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BOULEVARD NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, 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.
Non-resident trustees of a Massachusetts Business Trust challenged substituted service in Florida based on alleged business activities. The court held that service was improper because the action did not arise out of the trustees' business activities in Florida, as required by statute, and the promissory note was made by the trust entity itself, not the individual trustees.
The court held that substituted service on the non-resident trustees should have been quashed. The statute requires that the action arise out of the defendant's doing business in Florida; here, the action arose from a note made by the business trust entity, and the individual trustees' status as doing business in Florida was insufficient to establish proper jurisdiction.
[1] A statute authorizing substituted service on a local agent for a non-resident doing business in the state requires that the action arise out of the non-resident's busines…
[2] A Massachusetts Business Trust is a separate legal entity for the purpose of being sued.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“With reference to service on the non-resident trustees on the theory upon which the plaintiff proceeded, which was that they are engaged in business in Florida, it was not shown that the present action is one which arose out of their doing business in this state, as required in the cited statute.”
Establishes the core holding that service requires the action to arise out of the defendants' business activities 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 are four non-resident trustees of First Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts Business Trust. They were defendants in an action by Boulev…
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 Doing Business In A State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, non-residents, being four of the trustees of First Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts Business Trust, who are the defendants in this action by the appellee to recover on a promissory note given to it by First Mortgage Investors, have filed an interlocutory appeal from an order denying their motions to dismiss by which they challenged the substituted service upon them, made by serving a local agent on the theory of their doing business in this state, under § 48.071 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
We hold the appeal has merit, and that on the motions of said defendants the service upon them should have been quashed. With reference to service’ on the non-resident trustees on the theory upon which the plaintiff proceeded, which was that they are engaged in business in Florida, it was not shown that the present action is one which arose out of their doing business in this state, as required in the cited statute.
The note sued upon, a copy of which is attached to the complaint, 'shows it to have been made by First Mortgage Investors. It was not a note of or made by the trustees, and on its face negatived liability of the trustees. In denying the defendants’ motions, the court did not find that the said non-resident defendant trustees had done or were doing business in Florida, but found that “First Mortgage Investor's, a Massachusetts Business Trust, has, through persons who are named in their respective capacities as trustees thereof in the complaint herein, engaged in business in the State of Florida”.
The Massachusetts Business Trust, First Mortgage Investors, was shown to have complied with §. 609.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to qualify it to transact business in Florida, and it has been held that under the law of Massachusetts a Business Trust of that state is an entity for the purpose of being' sued, and when sued can be served by serving one of the trustees. In Vischer v. Dow Jones & Co., 325 Ill.App. 104, 59 N. E.2d 884, 892, the court said: “ * * * The instant defendant [a Massachusetts Business Trust] was created under Chapter 182, Annotated Laws of Mass., Vol. 6, p. 72, and while it is not a corporation nor an association, it is a separate legal entity for the purpose of being sued. See Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 612, 29 N.E. 2d 140, 132 A.L.R. 1; Griswold v. United States, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 714, 719.
Section 6 of the Massachusetts Act, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 182, provides that such an association or trust may be sued in an action at law and its property shall be subject to attachment and execution in like manner as if it were a corporation and that service of process upon one of the trustees shall be sufficient.” * * *.
The order appealed from is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Your Constr. Ctr., Inc. v. Gross, 316 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…at where a note and mortgage are executed naming as payee one trustee to this sort of foreign trust, and not more, that trustee is entitled to maintain an action on the note and mortgage and to discharge the obligation. See Boyd v. Blvd. Nat’l Bank, 306 So. 2d 551 (3d DCA Fla. 1975). We do not eliminate the possibility that there could be a motion to add parties under Fla.R.C.P. 1.250 (1975). Further, when plaintiff files his complaint, he must necessarily allege he is the owner and holder of the note and mo…
-
Tampa Props., Inc. v. Great Am. Mortg. Invs., 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…is undisputed that the plaintiff business trust has fully complied with Ch. 609, Fla.Stat., empowering it to conduct its business. The trend seems unmistakable from the recent Florida decisions. In Boyd v. Boulevard National Bank, Fla.App.3d 1975, 306 So. 2d 551, the Third District Court of Appeal held such a trust was an entity for purpose of being sued, and in Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, Fla.App.4th 1975, 316 So. 2d 596, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that all of the trustees of a M…
-
Overseas Dev., Inc. v. Krause, 323 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…exact point has been passed upon by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, Fla.App.1975, 316 So. 2d 596. We follow the holding of that court. See also Boyd v. Boulevard National Bank, Fla.App.1975, 306 So. 2d 551. We further note that such holding does not eliminate the possibility that there could be a motion to add parties under RCP 1.250. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence