Citibank, N.A. v. Klein, 81-134
| Decision Date | 24 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-134,81-134 |
| Citation | 396 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | 31 UCC Rep.Serv. 650 CITIBANK, N.A., Petitioner, v. Honorable Edward S. KLEIN, as Circuit Judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida and Ira Kinsler, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smathers & Thompson and John H. Schulte, Miami, and Landon Clayman, Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Stanley H. Apte, Miami Beach, for respondents.
Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Kinsler sued in the Dade County Circuit Court to, inter alia, enjoin a Miami area bank, issuer of a letter of credit, from paying the beneficiary of this letter of credit, Citibank, N.A., a New York based national banking association. Citibank, N.A. moved to dismiss, asserting that the Circuit Court had neither personal jurisdiction over it, nor in rem jurisdiction over the letter of credit. Before this motion could be heard, Kinsler voluntarily dismissed his action against Citibank, N.A. His action against the issuer continued, and the Circuit Court thereafter temporarily enjoined the issuer from honoring the letter of credit. Citibank asks us to issue our writ prohibiting the respondent judge from conducting further proceedings in respect to this letter of credit and to vacate the temporary injunction.
We grant the relief sought by Citibank, N.A. upon a holding that (1) in the absence, as here, of personal jurisdiction over the holder-beneficiary Citibank, N.A., in order to acquire in rem jurisdiction, it was necessary that the letter itself, at all times located in New York, be within the trial court's jurisdiction, Tueta v. Rodriguez, 176 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); (2) the holding of Tueta v. Rodriguez, supra, that the relationship between the issuer of an irrevocable letter of credit and the beneficiary of that letter is not that of debtor and creditor so as to give the court where the issuer is located jurisdiction of a res upon which its judgment could operate, controls the present case, notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of Section 675.114(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), which authorizes "a court of appropriate jurisdiction" to enjoin the honoring of a draft under circumstances arguably similar to those alleged by Kinsler, since this statute, while authorizing the remedy, does not purport to determine which court is one of appropriate jurisdiction, a determination made in Tueta v. Rodriguez, supra, 1 see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klem v. Espejo-Norton, 3D06-3080.
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (observing that scope of Florida circuit court jurisdiction extends to entire state); but cf. Citibank, N.A. v. Klein, 396 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See generally McGowin v. McGowin, 122 Fla. 394, 165 So. 274 (1936); State v. Ostergard, 360 So.2d 414, 414 (Fla.1......
-
Paccar Intern., Inc. v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.
...Trust Co., 59 N.Y.2d 615, 463 N.Y.S.2d 194, 449 N.E.2d 1272 (1983), aff'g 85 A.D.2d 335, 447 N.Y.S.2d 962 (1982); Citibank, N.A. v. Klein, 396 So.2d 763 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981).6 While it is true that California law would apply, that fact is of little consequence. The fact that a contract is......