DeMetra Hontzas v. Kaufman, Rossin & Co.

513 So. 2d 745, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12244
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 6, 1987
Docket87-1311
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 745 (DeMetra Hontzas v. Kaufman, Rossin & 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
DeMetra Hontzas v. Kaufman, Rossin & Co., 513 So. 2d 745, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12244 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

513 So.2d 745 (1987)

Maria DeMetra HONTZAS and Richard Bite, Appellants,
v.
KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO., Appellee.

No. 87-1311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 6, 1987.

*746 Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Lloyd R. Schwed, Miami, Baxley, Dillard & Dauphin, Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.

Stanley M. Newmark, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review which denied the appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is reversed upon a holding that the plaintiff's allegations that the appellants engaged it, a Florida firm, to perform accounting services in connection with the evaluation of an Alabama estate and property located in Alabama with the implicit understanding that payment for these services would be forwarded to the accountants in Florida and the explicit understanding that the agreement between the parties would be governed by the laws of the State of Florida are not, without more, sufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction over the appellants, Alabama residents. Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).[1] Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to set aside the default entered against the appellants and dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

NOTES

[1] At the appellants' request, we judicially noticed the record and briefs filed in this court in the Herman case and determined that the guaranty contract there involved contained a choice-of-Florida-law clause.

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

Related

Ferenchak v. Zormati
S.D. Florida, 2021
deMCO TECHNO., INC. v. CC ENGINEERED CASTINGS, INC.
769 So. 2d 1128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Prentice v. PRENTICE COLOUR, INC.
779 F. Supp. 578 (M.D. Florida, 1991)
Fleet Credit Corp. v. Shelley Office Products & Printing, Inc.
588 So. 2d 1032 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp.
542 So. 2d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 So. 2d 745, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2365, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetra-hontzas-v-kaufman-rossin-co-fladistctapp-1987.