Spencer Boat Co., Inc. v. Liutermoza
| Decision Date | 16 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1069 Summary Calendar.,74-1069 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 498 F.2d 332 |
| Parties | SPENCER BOAT CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John L. LIUTERMOZA et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank E. Maloney, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Donald F. Geffner, Richard F. Ralph, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 16, 1974.
Defendants, Liutermoza and Zimmerman, appeal from a judgment on a contract whereby plaintiff, Spencer Boat Company, undertook to repair defendants' boat. This appeal challenges service of process upon defendants pursuant to Florida's long-arm statute and the award of attorneys' fees as provided in the contract. We reverse on the first issue, and therefore the second need not be reached.
As relevant to the jurisdictional question, the facts of the case are as follows. Defendants, Connecticut residents, visited Florida in 1970 and bought a pleasure boat.1 They sailed the boat to Connecticut, receiving the bill for the work upon their arrival. After the voyage a dispute developed over whether plaintiff had performed the repairs in a workmanlike manner. Defendants ultimately refused to pay the bill. At trial defendants unsuccessfully contended they could not be served under the Florida long-arm statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 48.181, which provides in relevant part:
(1) The acceptance by any person or persons, individually, or associated together as a copartnership or any other form or type of association, who are residents of any other state or country, . . . of the privilege extended by law to nonresidents and others to operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on a business or business venture in the state, . . ., constitutes an appointment by the persons . . . of the secretary of state of the state as their agent for service of process . . . .
In 1973 the Florida Legislature amended the long-arm statute to provide for service on any person who allegedly "(g) Breaches a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state." Laws of Florida, Ch. 73-179. The clear implication is that the pre-1973 law, which applies to this case, did not reach such transactions.
Defendants' activities in Florida do not fit the literal terms of the statute. To do business or conclude a business transaction is not "to operate, conduct, engage in, or carry on a business or business venture in the state," and the statute must be construed strictly, not broadly. See Lyster v. Round, 276 So.2d 186, 188 (Fla.App.1973) (citing DeVaney v. Rumsch, 228 So.2d 904 (Fla.1969)); Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 176 So.2d 903 (Fla. 1965).2 Departure from the literal terms does not improve plaintiff's case. Recent decisions of the Florida courts leave no doubt that intent on the part of the nonresident to seek pecuniary benefit is essential to long-arm jurisdiction under the statute. See Lyster v. Round, supra (citing DeVaney v. Rumsch, supra); Compuguide Corporation v. Sachs, 259 So.2d 513 (Fla.App.1972). There was no such intent in the present case.3
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter an order quashing the attempted service of process upon defendants.
Reversed and remanded.
* Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
1 Although the defendants were business partners, the trial court specifically found that the purchase of the boat was wholly unrelated to any business venture or other undertaking for pecuniary benefit.
2 Appellee's citation of International Shoe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Trust Bank v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.
...of state law, in the absence of supervening state court decisions requiring a different interpretation. Spencer Boat Co. v. Liutermoza, 498 F.2d 332 (5th Cir.1974). Florida law, this Court has previously held that a negligence action for personal injuries sustained at a hotel while vacation......
-
Fioretti v. Massachusetts General Life Ins. Co.
...they cannot, however, be viewed as representing a definitive answer to these questions of state law. See Spencer Boat Co. v. Liutermoza, 498 F.2d 332, 333 n. 3 (5th Cir.1974).We also are cognizant of our decision in Bankers Security Life Ins. Society v. Kane, 885 F.2d 820, 822 (11th Cir.198......
-
Bloom v. AH Pond Co., Inc.
...Company v. Otto Candies, Inc., supra. Furthermore, the long-arm statutes are to be strictly construed, see e. g. Spencer Boat Company v. Liuternoza, 498 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1974); Esberger v. First Florida Business Consultants, 338 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Lyster v. Round, 276 So.2d 186......
-
Rollins Nursing Home, Inc. v. M & LC/Stillwell Mortg. Co.
...v. Kush, 157 So.2d 203 (Fla.App., 1963); Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, 144 So.2d 512 (Fla.App., 1962); Spencer Boat Co., Inc. v. Liutermoza, 498 F.2d 332 (5 Cir., 1974). Furthermore, the Florida statute requires more activities or contacts to sustain service of process than are requir......