Osadchuk v. Verkaik

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Osadchuk v. Verkaik

913 So. 2d 1277, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18235, 2005 WL 3076632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 2005

DocketNo. 5D05-1660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 913 So. 2d 1277 (Osadchuk v. Verkaik) 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

Osadchuk v. Verkaik, 913 So. 2d 1277, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18235, 2005 WL 3076632 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEUS, C.J.

John and Joan Verkaik (“the Verkaiks”), owners of two Florida seed companies, sued Osadchuk, a Canadian farmer, for failure to pay amounts due on a two promissory notes. Osadchuk appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He argues that neither failure to pay a debt due in Florida nor signing a contract with a forum selection clause, when standing alone, are sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction under constitutional due process jurisprudence. However, the trial court correctly found that when these two factors are combined, they are sufficient to satisfy due process. See, e.g., Global Satellite Communication Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Desai Patel Sharma, Ltd. v. Don Bell Indus., Inc., 729 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Because Osadchuk signed promissory notes in which he agreed to pay in Florida and consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida, he should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Florida. Global, Desai. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Osadchuk’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PLEUS, C.J.

John and Joan Verkaik (“the Verkaiks”), owners of two Florida seed companies, sued Osadchuk, a Canadian farmer, for failure to pay amounts due on a two promissory notes. Osadchuk appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He argues that neither failure to pay a debt due in Florida nor signing a contract with a forum selection clause, when standing alone, are sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction under constitutional due process jurisprudence. However, the trial court correctly found that when these two factors are combined, they are sufficient to satisfy due process. See, e.g., Global Satellite Communication Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Desai Patel Sharma, Ltd. v. Don Bell Indus., Inc., 729 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Because Osadchuk signed promissory notes in which he agreed to pay in Florida and consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida, he should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Florida. Global, Desai. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Osadchuk’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

913 So. 2d 1277, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18235, 2005 WL 3076632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osadchuk-v-verkaik-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack