Chereskin v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

705 So. 2d 955, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 167, 1998 WL 5418
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 12, 1998·No. No. 97-2015·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the trial court determining that the court has jurisdiction over the trustees of the trusts, the situs of which is in Florida. We do so on the authority of Saffan v. Saffan, 588 So.2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), Lampe v. Hoyne, 652 So.2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989). We hold that, not only is there jurisdiction because the trust situs is in Florida, but that the statutory requirements, as well as the constitutional minimum contacts requirement, have been satisfied in this case.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

Chereskin v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 705 So. 2d 955, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 167, 1998 WL 5418 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

705 So. 2d 955 (Chereskin v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lampe v. Hoyne
652 So. 2d 424 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais
554 So. 2d 499 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Saffan v. Saffan
588 So. 2d 684 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)