Clark v. Realty Inv. Center, Inc., 71--618
| Citation | 252 So.2d 589 |
| Decision Date | 21 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--618,71--618 |
| Parties | Dana L. CLARK and George E. Cartier, Appellants, v. REALTY INVESTMENT CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, and Realty Sales Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Koenig & Katz and Harry N. Lembeck, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellants.
Morris Berick and Simon Englander, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This appeal, filed by two of the defendants below, is from an order denying their defensive motion stating, as grounds, lack of jurisdiction over the person and insufficiency of process. See Rule 1.140(b)(2) and (4) FRCP, 30 F.S.A.
The complaint alleged the plaintiffs were real estate brokers; that they had procured a purchaser for all of the outstanding stock of the defendant Florida corporation; that the stock was owned by the five individual defendants, three of whom (Van, Miller and Aronson) were residents of Florida and two of whom, the appellants Clark and Cartier, were non-residents. It was alleged a contract for sale of the stock was entered into between a purchaser and the sellers on a certain date, and that on the same date the sellers entered into a separate contract with the brokers recognizing them as having procured the purchaser and agreeing to pay the brokers a stated commission; that it was a condition of the contract for sale of the corporate stock that title to the real estate owned by the corporation should be good and marketable; that the title proved to be otherwise; and that by reason thereof the sale was not closed and the purchaser obtained a return of the earnest money.
The plaintiff brokers, declaring on their commission contract, sought judgment against the individual defendants for the commission claimed to be due them. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged they anticipated difficulty in collecting their commission due to the fact that two of the persons obligated to pay the same were non-residents, for which circumstance the plaintiffs prayed for imposition of a lien on the corporate stock owned by the defendants and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of the stock, in order to insure its retention by them so that it would be available to be made subject to execution to satisfy their judgment for commission, if and when obtained. We express no opinion on the merit of that ambitious claim of the plaintiffs for equitable relief,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bedford Computer Corp. v. Graphic Press, Inc.
...Equipment Co., 326 So.2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Ressler v. Sena, 307 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Clark v. Realty Investment Center, Inc., 252 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The fact that the defendant received actual notice of this lawsuit does not render the service of process valid. Thi......
-
Martin Blumenthal Associates, Inc. v. Dinsmore, 73--1217
...purchaser through a local broker operates to make the non-residents subject to substituted service. Cf. Clark v. Realty Investment Center, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 589. We think that it In Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512, this court stated that in order ......
-
Ressler v. Sena, 74--1451
...service attempted on the landlord under F.S. 49.011, Laws of 1973, was void. We reverse upon authority of Clark v. Realty Investment Center, Inc., 252 So.2d 589 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1971). MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. ...