Benton v. Travelers Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benton v. Travelers Insurance Co.

585 So. 2d 434, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8472, 1991 WL 167832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1991

DocketNo. 90-0295

StatusPublished

This text of 585 So. 2d 434 (Benton v. Travelers Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton v. Travelers Insurance Co., 585 So. 2d 434, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8472, 1991 WL 167832 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in striking the pleadings of the estate because of the failure of one of the beneficiaries to appear for a deposition. The beneficiary, an elderly citizen and resident of Hungary, was not joined as a party in the proceedings and was not served with any process to secure her appearance in Florida. We do not believe that the fact that the beneficiary stands to gain if the estate’s claim is successful, operates to make the beneficiary a party to the law suit or otherwise personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court. We also agree with appellant that in view of the lack of jurisdiction over the beneficiary, the imposition of sanctions against the estate’s attorney was not justified. Our reversal is, of course, without prejudice to other proceedings to join the beneficiary or secure her appearance, or for other discovery proceedings against the estate. Cf. De Trujillo v. Dominquez, 532 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

[435]*435ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. GUNTHER, J., dissents without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in striking the pleadings of the estate because of the failure of one of the beneficiaries to appear for a deposition. The beneficiary, an elderly citizen and resident of Hungary, was not joined as a party in the proceedings and was not served with any process to secure her appearance in Florida. We do not believe that the fact that the beneficiary stands to gain if the estate’s claim is successful, operates to make the beneficiary a party to the law suit or otherwise personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court. We also agree with appellant that in view of the lack of jurisdiction over the beneficiary, the imposition of sanctions against the estate’s attorney was not justified. Our reversal is, of course, without prejudice to other proceedings to join the beneficiary or secure her appearance, or for other discovery proceedings against the estate. Cf. De Trujillo v. Dominquez, 532 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

[435]*435ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. GUNTHER, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 So. 2d 434, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8472, 1991 WL 167832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-travelers-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack