White v. Watts

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. Watts

716 So. 2d 293, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8515, 1998 WL 396238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1998

DocketNo. 97-04388

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 716 So. 2d 293 (White v. Watts) 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

White v. Watts, 716 So. 2d 293, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8515, 1998 WL 396238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Rosalind Steck White, the plaintiff who brought a shareholder’s derivative suit, appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement with June L. Watts and Marketing Productions, Inc. We reverse because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the corporation.

Ms. White filed this action in January, 1996. To meet the requirements of a derivative action the complaint named the corporation and was verified by Ms. White. Although the corporation was a named defendant, Ms. White never served it. In a shareholder’s derivative action, the corporation is an indispensable party defendant. See Alario v. Miller, 354 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Without completed service of process, there is no personal jurisdiction over the corporation.

Because no jurisdiction was obtained over the defendant corporation, no judgment could be entered against it.

Reversed.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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