Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

113 So. 3d 1019, 2013 WL 2121729, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7963

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-1172

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 113 So. 3d 1019 (Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust 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

Humphrey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 113 So. 3d 1019, 2013 WL 2121729, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7963 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Barrington Humphrey is the named defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. On Humphrey’s motion, the circuit court quashed the service of process on him. In its order, the circuit court also directed Humphrey to provide his current address to the Bank. Humphrey challenges this provision on appeal. The Bank has neither appealed the quashal of service nor filed an answer brief in response to Humphrey’s appeal. We treat this case as an appeal from a nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We reverse.

Without proper service, the court never secured personal jurisdiction over Humphrey and, thus, had no power over him. That being so, the court had no authority to direct Humphrey to do anything. See Riddick v. Suncoast Beauty Coll., Inc., 570 So.2d 1064, 1065-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversing injunction entered against individuals not named in suit or served); see [1020]*1020also Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Brown, 761 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“If the court is to exercise its power over a person it must have jurisdiction over that individual.... In the absence of personal service or a statutorily permitted alternative, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a personal judgment against the defendant”). In Alger v. Peters, 88 So.2d 903 (Fla.1956), the Florida Supreme Court explained the necessity of personal jurisdiction:

[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree. If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen [to that extent an empty threat], and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. It is not vested with sovereign powers to declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whom it gets personal service....

Id. at 907 (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 882, 832-33 (2d Cir.1930) (Hand, J.)).

We reverse the order quashing service insofar as it directed Humphrey to furnish his address to the Bank.

Reversed in part.

DAVIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Barrington Humphrey is the named defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. On Humphrey’s motion, the circuit court quashed the service of process on him. In its order, the circuit court also directed Humphrey to provide his current address to the Bank. Humphrey challenges this provision on appeal. The Bank has neither appealed the quashal of service nor filed an answer brief in response to Humphrey’s appeal. We treat this case as an appeal from a nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We reverse.

Without proper service, the court never secured personal jurisdiction over Humphrey and, thus, had no power over him. That being so, the court had no authority to direct Humphrey to do anything. See Riddick v. Suncoast Beauty Coll., Inc., 570 So.2d 1064, 1065-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversing injunction entered against individuals not named in suit or served); see [1020]*1020also Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Brown, 761 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“If the court is to exercise its power over a person it must have jurisdiction over that individual.... In the absence of personal service or a statutorily permitted alternative, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a personal judgment against the defendant”). In Alger v. Peters, 88 So.2d 903 (Fla.1956), the Florida Supreme Court explained the necessity of personal jurisdiction:

[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree. If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen [to that extent an empty threat], and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. It is not vested with sovereign powers to declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whom it gets personal service....

Id. at 907 (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 882, 832-33 (2d Cir.1930) (Hand, J.)).

We reverse the order quashing service insofar as it directed Humphrey to furnish his address to the Bank.

Reversed in part.

DAVIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 3d 1019, 2013 WL 2121729, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack