GEORGIA SAVINGS AND LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DELWOOD ESTATES, 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.
Georgia Savings and Loan appeals an order denying its motion to quash service of process under Florida's long-arm statute. The court holds that the appellee failed to present sufficient direct proof that the defendant was subject to jurisdiction, despite evidence that a contract requiring performance in Florida was breached.
The trial court's order denying the motion to quash is reversed and remanded because the appellee failed to meet its burden of presenting clear facts justifying service under the long-arm statute. While the record may sustain an inference that a contract breach occurred in Florida, this is insufficient without direct proof by affidavit or otherwise.
[1] A plaintiff seeking to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute bears the burden of presenting facts that clearly justify its applicability.
[2] Statutes providing for substituted service must be strictly construed.
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“Statutes providing for substituted service must be strictly construed and one seeking to effect service thereunder has the burden of presenting facts which clearly justify the applicability of the statute”
Establishes the strict standard and burden of proof required for service under long-arm statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorgia Savings and Loan (defendant below) was served with process in a contract dispute. The record contains evidence suggesting a contract requiring…
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 Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks by this interlocutory appeal review of an order of the trial court denying the defendant’s motion to quash service of process under Florida’s “long-arm statute”. We have heretofore, in prior opinions of this Court, discussed the proper methods for adducing proof in this sort of case.1 Nothing will be accomplished by reiterating here that which was said there. Suffice to say that our examination of the record before us reveals a dearth of evidence that appellant was doing business in the State of Florida.2 Indeed, appellee tacitly concedes that there is no such evidence, but urges that jurisdiction and service of process may be bottomed upon F.S. 48.193(1)(g), which provides in material part'as follows:
“Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits that person * * * to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following:
* * * * * *
“(g) Breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.
* * * * *
Again, however, although the record would sustain an inference that the contract giving rise to the cause of action sub judice required the performance of acts in this State and that such contract was breached by appellant, there is no direct proof thereof by affidavit or otherwise. As stated in American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, supra:
“Statutes providing for substituted service must be strictly construed and one seeking to effect service thereunder has the burden of presenting facts which clearly justify the applicability of the statute [citations omitted].” (308 So. 2d 642)
We do not here hold that appellee cannot by appropriate proof meet its burden of proof. We only hold that it has not done so. In the absence of a showing that appellant has been or will be in some manner prejudiced, appellee should be afforded a further opportunity, within the guidelines of this opinion and the cases herein cited, to again attempt to substantiate service of process upon appellant.3
Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees inci- , dent to this interlocutory appeal is denied.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur. . Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App.1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 81, cert. dis. Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 302 So. 2d 414; American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, Fla.App.1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 639.
. American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, supra.
. American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, supra, and cases therein cited.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cosmopolitan Health SPA, Inc. v. Health Indus., Inc., 362 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…rly challenged by affidavit, the plaintiff must sustain its assertions by affidavit or other proof and may not rely on a mere reiteration of the allegations contained in the complaint. Georgia Savings and Loan Service Corp. v. Delwood Estates, Inc., 315 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). See also Dublin Company v. Peninsular Supply Co., 309 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In order to sustain in personam jurisdiction over Cosmopolitan, appellee relies on Section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes, which provides: “…
-
Madax Int'l Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Servs., Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…e question of whether the defendant is “conducting a business or business venture” in Florida is irrelevant because service is being made under Section 48.193 rather than Section 48.181. Unlike Georgia Sav. & L. Serv. Corp. v. Delwood Estates, Inc., 315 So. 2d 237 (Fla.1st DCA 1975), the record in this case clearly reflects the applicability of the statute. On the other hand, we think the court erred in requiring Mr. Moore to travel to St. Petersburg for his deposition. This is not a case in which the depone…
-
Neff v. Adler, 416 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…rly challenged by affidavit, the plaintiff must sustain its assertions by affidavit or other proof and may not rely on a mere reiteration of the allegations contained in the complaint. Georgia Savings and Loan Service Corp. v. Delwood Estates, Inc., 315 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). [*1244] See also Dublin Company v. Peninsular Supply Co., 309 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). (Emphasis added). See also Wynn v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We believe section 56.29 must be rea…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Metcalf v. Langston, 296 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Am. Baseball CAP, Inc. v. Duzinski, 308 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Metcalf v. Langston, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)
- Mitrisin v. Hill, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)