GLOBAL SATELLITE COMMUN. CO. v. Sudline, 4D02-3219.
Decision Date | 16 July 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 4D02-3219.,4D02-3219. |
Citation | 849 So.2d 466 |
Parties | GLOBAL SATELLITE COMMUNICATION CO., d/b/a Group GSC, Appellant, v. Sarl SUDLINE and Fernand Sultan, individually, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack Bariton of Jack Bariton, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.
Scott M. Behren of Waldman, Feluren & Trigoboff, P.A., Weston, for appellees.
The appellant, Global Satellite Communication Co., d/b/a Group GSC, a Florida corporation, appeals the dismissal of its complaint against appellees, Sarl Sudline, a foreign corporation, and Fernand Sultan, an agent of Sudline, for lack of personal jurisdiction as to either defendant and for failure to state a cause of action against Sultan. We reverse the order of the trial court granting Sudline's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In all other respects, we affirm.
Sudline, the defendant below, is a French company with offices located in Marseille, France. According to the record, Sultan, Sudline's agent, saw Global's internet advertisement for cell phones. Sultan contacted Global in Florida about purchasing a large shipment and asked that a contract be sent. Pursuant to the terms of the written contract, Sudline agreed to purchase 15,000 cellular phones from Global, which were to be shipped in allotments to Dubai, Saudi Arabia.
The written contract was subsequently executed by both Sudline and Global. The contract was silent as to the place of payment, providing only that payment was to be made by "swift transfer." Additionally, section twenty-one of the contract, entitled "Governing Law," stated:
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. Venue shall be in Broward County, Florida.
Subsequently, when Sudline refused to pay the initial deposit of $139,500, which was due prior to shipping, Global filed a two-count complaint for breach of contract against Sudline and Sultan, in his individual capacity. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction as to both Sudline and Sultan. Further, as to Sultan, individually, the trial court granted the motion for failure to state a cause of action, finding that there was no basis on which to hold Sultan personally liable on the contract, which he signed as a representative of Sudline.
Discussion
Florida Statute section 48.193(1)(g) provides that statutory long-arm jurisdiction may be asserted over a nonresident for "[b]reaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state." Failure to pay a contractual debt where payment is due to be made in Florida is sufficient to satisfy Florida's long-arm provision that refers to contractual acts "required" to be performed in Florida. See Hartcourt, 817 So.2d at 1070
.
Florida courts have consistently held that where the contract is silent as to place of payment, it is presumed to be the place of residence of the payee. See Buto v. Sirius Int'l Ins. Co., 807 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
; Harris v. Caribank, 536 So.2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); First Nat'l Bank of Kissimmee v. Dunham, 342 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)("[t]he note does not mention the place of payment so it is payable at the residence of the payee") . Global had only two offices, one in Dade and the other in Broward County, Florida. Here, while the contract does not specifically state where payment would be made, under the foregoing case law, it would be presumed that payment was to be made in Florida. Thus, Sudline's failure to make payment in Florida would meet the requirements of the long-arm statute. See, e.g., Hartcourt; Kane v. Am. Bank of Merritt Island, 449 So.2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
It has been held that the failure to pay money in Florida, standing alone, would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Interim Healthcare of Se. La., Inc.
...a "contract is silent as to place of payment, it is presumed to be the place of residence of the payee." Glob. Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Sudline, 849 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Thus, Defendants' alleged failure to make the required payments to Plaintiff under the Livingston Franchi......
-
BANCO INVERSION v. Celtic Finance Corp.
...Entry Serv. Inc., 513 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 586 (Fla.1988); and compare Global Satellite Comm. Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (where requirement to pay money in Florida has been coupled with Florida venue selection clause in contract, cou......
-
Travelocity.Com LP v. Pier 35 Events, Inc.
...at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2004) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 n. 14 (1985)); Global Satellite Communication Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).C. Discussion Travelocity argues that Pier 35 contractually consented to this court's jurisdiction, permittin......
-
Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling
...Florida's long-arm provision that refers to contractual acts ‘required’ to be performed in Florida.” Global Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “[W]hen a written contract fails to specify the place where payments are to be made, a cause of action for fa......