ABRAHAM FELDMAN A/K/A AL FELDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST BANK OF DADELAND, A STATE BANKING ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Abraham Feldman, a California resident, challenged personal jurisdiction in Florida over a breach of guarantee claim. The court affirmed that Florida had jurisdiction over Feldman because he personally executed a guarantee contract in Florida and breached it by failing to perform payment obligations required to be performed in Florida.
Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendant because he personally executed the contract of guaranty in Florida and breached it by failing to pay the Southeast Bank pursuant to the terms of the guaranty, thus satisfying Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(g).
[1] A defendant who personally executes a contract of guaranty in Florida and breaches it by failing to pay submits to the jurisdiction of Florida courts for causes of action…
[2] Service of process on a defendant residing in California can be effected by mailing a summons and complaint to a California sheriff for personal service on the defendant.
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“We find that § 48.193(1) (g), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is dispositive of this appeal inasmuch as appellant personally executed the contract of guaranty in Florida and breached it by failing to pay the Southeast Bank pursuant to the terms of the guaranty.”
The court's holding that the statute directly addressed the jurisdictional issue and supported Florida's jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 21, 1974, Kendall Jeweler's & Galleries, Inc. executed a $6,000 promissory note to Southeast Bank of Dadeland, signed by Feldman as vice presi…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal by defendant contesting an order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint as to him for insufficiency of service of process and lack of jurisdiction over his person.
On June 21, 1974, Kendall Jeweler’s & Galleries, Inc. executed and delivered a $6,000 promissory note to the Southeast Bank of Dadeland. The note was signed by appellant Abraham Feldman as vice president of Kendall Jeweler’s and personally endorsed by him. In addition, appellant and Jerome Klein executed and delivered to Southeast Bank personal guarantees of the promissory note. In September, Kendall Jeweler’s delivered a renewal of the promissory note, which was again signed by appellant as vice president. Kendall Jeweler’s failed to pay the note and renewal when due on December 18, and the Southeast Bank filed suit against Kendall Jeweler’s, Klein and the appellant who is a resident of California. Personal service on the appellant was effected by mailing a summons and a copy of the complaint to a California sheriff who personally served the appellant at his California residence. Appellant moved to dismiss the complaint as to him for insufficiency of service of process and lack of jurisdiction over his person. The motion was denied and defendant appeals.
We find that § 48.193(1) (g), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 is dispositive of this appeal inasmuch as appellant personally executed the contract of guaranty in Florida and breached it by failing to pay the Southeast Bank pursuant to the terms of the guaranty.
The order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.
. “48.193 Acts subjecting persons to jurisdiction of courts of state
“(1) 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 and, if he is a natural person, his personal representative 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.”
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)…So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Madax International Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Services, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Lewis v. Cues, Inc., 338 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); [*369] Feldman v. Southeast Bank of Dadeland, 323 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Georgia Savings and Loan Service Corp. v. Delwood Estates, Inc., supra. In the instant case appellee’s allegations contained in its motion for writ of garnishment are insufficient to sustain the exercise of in personam jurisdict…
-
Gilbert v. Herne, 544 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…(g). First Nat’l Bank v. Dunham, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Moltz v. Seneca Balance, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 612 (S.D.Fla.1985); Madax Inter. Corp. v. Delcher Inter. Moving, 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Feldman v. Southeast Bank, 323 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1976). That section adds to the reach of “long arm” statutes, any person “[bjreaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.” §…
-
The First Nat'l Bank OF Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…by the contract to be performed in this state.” In the case at bar we have a purported breach of contract in this state by Dilbeck’s alleged failure to pay the promissory note to the Bank at Kissimmee, Florida. Feldman v. Southeast Bank of Dadeland, 323 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). The note does not mention the place of payment so it is payable at the residence of the payee. See, e. g., Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Serv., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Dilbeck was subject to the juri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence