Fry v. Walchle Investment Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fry v. Walchle Investment Group, Inc.

712 So. 2d 471, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7879, 1998 WL 347993

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4477

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 471 (Fry v. Walchle Investment Group, Inc.) 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

Fry v. Walchle Investment Group, Inc., 712 So. 2d 471, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7879, 1998 WL 347993 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an appealable non-final order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because we find that the factual disputes in the affidavits and the deposition cannot be reconciled, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction over Appellants pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989).

Appellee, “WIG”, the plaintiff below, is a brokerage company located in Florida. Appellants, defendants below, are residents of Arizona. Appellee filed suit against Appellants for breach of an oral contract under which Appellants would pay Appellee a brokerage commission if it procured a buyer for Appellants’ Arizona mobile home park. Appellants deny the existence of this contract. According to Appellee, the oral contract dictated that WIG would be paid its commission in Florida. However, Appellants contend that they always intended that any commission for the sale of the property would be paid at closing in Arizona. Based on these factual disputes, we remand for an evidentia-ry hearing and direct the trial court to determine whether an oral contract was reached, and, if so, where the parties intended for closing costs to be paid.

WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an appealable non-final order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because we find that the factual disputes in the affidavits and the deposition cannot be reconciled, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction over Appellants pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989).

Appellee, “WIG”, the plaintiff below, is a brokerage company located in Florida. Appellants, defendants below, are residents of Arizona. Appellee filed suit against Appellants for breach of an oral contract under which Appellants would pay Appellee a brokerage commission if it procured a buyer for Appellants’ Arizona mobile home park. Appellants deny the existence of this contract. According to Appellee, the oral contract dictated that WIG would be paid its commission in Florida. However, Appellants contend that they always intended that any commission for the sale of the property would be paid at closing in Arizona. Based on these factual disputes, we remand for an evidentia-ry hearing and direct the trial court to determine whether an oral contract was reached, and, if so, where the parties intended for closing costs to be paid.

WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 471, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7879, 1998 WL 347993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fry-v-walchle-investment-group-inc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack