Lawson v. Benson

136 So. 2d 353
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 11, 1962·No. No. 61-163·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee Clark C. Benson, a nonresident, filed a proceeding in Florida against an ex-wife for certain relief relating to child custody. It ended ineffectively, and with his attorney claiming an unpaid balance of fees. Thereafter, through a different attorney, Benson filed another custody proceeding against the ex-wife in Dade County. While here as a party and witness in that second proceeding, he was sued for fees by the lawyer who had represented him in the earlier proceeding. His motion to quash the service and dismiss the cause, on the ground that he was immune from service of process, was granted. In so holding, the able trial judge was eminently correct. See Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442, 178 So. 112, 116.

But the appellant argues that the ap-pellee was not immune to service of process in the action for attorney’s fees, because of the exception which applies when the action in which the party is sought to be served is incidental to or correlated with the subject matter of the suit or proceeding for which such person is present in the state. The facts of this case did not bring it within the exception. Compare L. P. Evans Motors, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 301; State ex rel. Ivey v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 792; Sanders v. Smith, 197 Miss. 304, 20 So.2d 663.

Affirmed.

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

Lawson v. Benson, 136 So. 2d 353 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

136 So. 2d 353 (Lawson v. Benson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken
33 Cal. App. 3d 754 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Crane v. Hayes
253 So. 2d 435 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)
Lienard v. DeWitt
143 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)