Osborn v. University Soc., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-731,79-731 |
| Citation | 378 So.2d 873 |
| Parties | P. Robert OSBORN, Appellant, v. The UNIVERSITY SOCIETY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Cort Frohlich of Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell & Batsel, Punta Gorda, for appellant.
Kenton H. Haymans and Lester E. Durst of Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley & Odom, Punta Gorda, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant.
Robert Osborn filed the complaint against the University Society, Inc. seeking damages for its failure to pay him for services under a consulting contract. He alleged that at the time he entered into the contract with the Society he was domiciled in Punta Gorda, that he signed the contract in Punta Gorda, and that although the contract was silent as to the place of payment, the Society had made all payments in Punta Gorda. He also alleged that the Society was a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey.
Osborn sought to obtain jurisdiction over the Society pursuant to the provisions of Section 48.193(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1977). The Society, however, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, concluding that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to subject the Society to jurisdiction under the statute.
Section 48.193(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the court if he "(b)reaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state." In Madax International Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Services, Inc., 342 So.2d 1082 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), our court in considering the reach of this section stated that where there is an express promise to pay and the contract does not state a place of payment, the debtor must seek the creditor and thus the breach occurs where the creditor is domiciled. In light of the principle announced in Madax, a literal reading of the statute suggests that the court had jurisdiction over the Society in this case.
Nevertheless, in cases involving jurisdiction over nonresidents, there are constitutional issues which we must also consider. A court may acquire personal jurisdiction over a nonresident only if the nonresident has "minimum contacts with (the forum state) such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz
...Pipe of Texas, Inc. v. Rubaii, 379 So.2d 475, 477 (Fla.App.1979), appeal dism'd, 383 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1980); Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla.App.1979). If § 48.193(1)(g) is construed and applied in accordance with due process limitations as a matter of state law, ......
-
Kreisler Mfg. v. Homstad Goldsmith, Inc.
...may result in infringement of the due process protection the constitution provides for nonresidents. Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So.2d 873 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1979).3 The Osborn court also noted an additional forum state contact in Madax not present in Osborn. In Madax, subsection......
-
Acquadro v. Bergeron
...So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Jack Pickard Dodge, Inc. v. Yarbrough, 352 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). [Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).] We approve of the foregoing analyses in [Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ], [......
-
Gulf Atlantic Transport Co. v. Offshore Tugs, Inc.
...326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Venetian Salami, 554 So.2d at 501-502; Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1979). To assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the defendant's conduct in connection with the forum......