Qualley v. International Air Services Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Qualley v. International Air Services Co.

546 So. 2d 730, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 327, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 421

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1303

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 730 (Qualley v. International Air Services 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

Qualley v. International Air Services Co., 546 So. 2d 730, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 327, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 421 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James B. Qualley, the plaintiff below, appeals the dismissal of his open account suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of process.

The record contains numerous exhibits which create a conflict between the parties concerning those issues which were argued before the court at the time of the hearing held in connection with the defendant’s Mo[731]*731tion to Dismiss. These factual conflicts would have had to have been resolved before the trial court could ascertain the propriety of the defendant’s motion. The record does not, however, reflect that any such determinations were made.

Accordingly, it is necessary to return this matter to the trial court for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve the various factual issues raised by the parties. Once these issues are resolved, the trial court will then be in a position to determine whether the defendant’s motion should be granted or denied based upon the state of the record at that point. Before the trial court can properly rule upon the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the court will have to determine exactly what was purchased by International Air Service Co., and what assets and/or liabilities, if any, were involved in the October, 1985, purchase “agreement”.

Upon resolving the factual conflicts raised by the parties, the trial court will be in a position to decide whether or not International Air Service Co. is subject to the jurisdiction of Florida courts.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

James B. Qualley, the plaintiff below, appeals the dismissal of his open account suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of process.

The record contains numerous exhibits which create a conflict between the parties concerning those issues which were argued before the court at the time of the hearing held in connection with the defendant’s Mo[731]*731tion to Dismiss. These factual conflicts would have had to have been resolved before the trial court could ascertain the propriety of the defendant’s motion. The record does not, however, reflect that any such determinations were made.

Accordingly, it is necessary to return this matter to the trial court for the purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve the various factual issues raised by the parties. Once these issues are resolved, the trial court will then be in a position to determine whether the defendant’s motion should be granted or denied based upon the state of the record at that point. Before the trial court can properly rule upon the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the court will have to determine exactly what was purchased by International Air Service Co., and what assets and/or liabilities, if any, were involved in the October, 1985, purchase “agreement”.

Upon resolving the factual conflicts raised by the parties, the trial court will be in a position to decide whether or not International Air Service Co. is subject to the jurisdiction of Florida courts.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 730, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 327, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qualley-v-international-air-services-co-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack