Family Law Pleadings: Allege Personal Jurisdiction

Person stretching hand out to sunset over water. Personal long arm jurisdiction. Photo by Todd Rhines (Unsplash)

For the Florida court to adjudicate claims against the corporation or trust, does the family law pleading allege personal jurisdiction over the entity? If service of process on an entity is sufficient in the family law case, is there personal jurisdiction over the entity for the family law party to proceed against the entity?

Family Law Pleading Must Allege Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Entity

A court has no jurisdiction over foreign entity named in a divorce action when the family law pleading fails to allege personal jurisdiction. Namely, the spouse who want to join the entity must allege it is subject to long-arm jurisdiction and has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to defend here. See Fishman, Inc. v. Fishman, 657 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (if a petitioner fails to plead a legally sufficient basis for long-arm jurisdiction, the respondent “need not come forward with affidavits to prove a negative — that is, that there is no jurisdiction.”)

Thus, in Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), the court dismissed a divorcing French wife’s complaint that failed to allege sufficient long-arm jurisdictional facts against a nonresident foreign entity and her nonresident husband. She alleged he fraudulently or under undue influence assigned a contract to buy a South Beach condo without her consent and to divest her of property rights.

Similarly, in Morgan v. Morgan, 679 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a mother’s unsworn pleading alleging a nonresident father failed to provide child support to children in Florida was deficient. She failed to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction under the Long Arm Statute.

Likewise, an ex-wife’s pleadings fell short in Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA Jul 6, 2022). The trial court should have dismissed her action against her nonresident ex-husband. She failed to establish a basis under Florida’s long-arm statute for specific or general personal jurisdiction over him to adjudicate her claims to domesticate and enforce a Hawaiian divorce judgment.

Threshold Analysis: Does the Family Law Pleading Allege Personal Jurisdiction?

As a threshold matter, a plaintiff must plead (and if challenged, prove) that a non-resident defendant engaged in statutorily enumerated conduct before a court may treat service of Florida process outside the state as if the plaintiff had effectuated service within Florida. Section 48.193(3), Florida Statutes; Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013); Murphy.

As discussed above, the Murphy court found the former wife’s pleadings deficient to allege a basis for long-arm jurisdiction over her ex-husband. To satisfy the pleading requirement, she had to plead at least language that tracked the long-arm statute. But she didn’t have to plead specific facts supporting service of process on him. Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

Alternatively, she could’ve alleged specific facts about how his actions fit within one of the sections of the long-arm statute. Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 869 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). But all she alleged was how long he had lived in Florida before he left, the properties he used to own in Florida, and the possibility that he may still own property in Florida.

Grammar Rules: The Long-Arm Statute Requires Personal Jurisdiction to Be Based on Current Activity

Following grammar rules, the Murphy court read Florida’s long-arm statute as requiring jurisdiction to be based on current (not exclusively past) substantial and not isolated activity. Heineken v. Heineken, 683 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Gibbons v. Brown, 716 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

We say this because the linking verb in the statutory provision that we highlighted in the prior paragraph (viz.: “is engaged”) is in the present tense. It is part of an adjective clause that begins with the relative pronoun serving as the subject of the clause—“who.” That clause altogether modifies the antecedent of “who,” which is “a defendant.” This adjective clause, stated in the present tense, thereby describes the type of defendant subject to general jurisdiction in subsection (2). That is to say, because the verb “is” links the past participle “engaged”—operating here as a subject complement—to the relative pronoun it modifies—“who”—the clause effectively links “engaged” (in the present tense) to the defendant being described. This means, in turn, that jurisdiction must be based on current (not exclusively past) “substantial and not isolated activity” within Florida.
Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA Jul 6, 2022).

Alleging Contributions of Marital Funds or Effort Alone Is Insufficient to Establish Long Arm Jurisdiction

A spouse’s alleging an entity must be brought in because of either spouse’s marital contributions of marital funds or effort is not enough to bring the entity within the jurisdictional reach of the circuit court where the Florida divorce action is pending. See Fishman, 657 So. 2d at 46.

See also Manus v. Manus, 193 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). In Manus, the court upheld quashing service on the president of a foreign corporation, while he was in Florida en route to the Bahamas. The wife failed to show her claim against the corporation arose out of an obligation or cause connected with the corporation’s activities in Florida. Instead, her claim was merely based on the husband’s majority ownership of stock in the corporation and alleged threats to remove his assets from the state and country.

Operating a Business or Owning Property in Florida

Operating a business in Florida, owning real property in Florida, committing a tortious act in Florida, breaching a contract in Florida, or engaging in substantial business activity in Florida may give rise to long arm jurisdiction. Section 48.193, Florida Statutes.

For example, Florida’s jurisdiction extended to a foreign corporation in a marriage dissolution case, because the suing spouse alleged the corporation unlawfully removed or encumbered marital assets. Thus, the predicate for jurisdiction was the alleged commission of a tortious act within Florida. Lee B. Stern & Co., Ltd. v. Green, 398 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

But consider Bacinello v. Admiral Marine Surveyors LLC, 338 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). In Bacinello, the president and only employee of a company sought dismissal of claims arising from the company’s buying a yacht in Florida. Through affidavits, he successfully defended against claims he operated a business in Florida, thus was subject to specific personal jurisdiction.

However, regarding claims Mr. Bacinello committed a tortious act in Florida, by secretly recording phone calls while he was in Canada (where it’s legal to record a call without the other party’s permission), in violation of Florida’s Security of Communications Act, the Third DCA remanded for the trial judge to resolve fact questions about whether he submitted himself to jurisdiction of Florida by committing a tortious act within the state.

Parent Companies and Affiliated Entities

A foreign corporation’s mere affiliation with a Florida subsidiary isn’t enough to establish personal jurisdiction. A medical malpractice plaintiff discovered that in The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc. v. Dictan, 327 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). That case held sharing trademarks among affiliates (including Florida affiliates) is insufficient to subject a foreign entity to Florida long-arm jurisdiction. Trademarks aren’t legal entities through which a person can act. An affiliate’s using the same trademarks, branding scheme, logo, common email domain, or employment policy manuals as its parent holding company doesn’t confer personal jurisdiction over the parent.

Suppose a spouse takes it further and alleges the parent acted in concert with a Florida entity to do wrong?

Alleged Conspiracy Between the Other Spouse and a Nonresident Corporation or Association

One spouse might assert the other spouse and a nonresident corporation or person engaged in civil conspiracy to commit a tort. Examples include fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass to property, defamation, or some other tort.

Conspiracy Theory of Personal Jurisdiction

For the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction to apply, the spouse must successfully allege a cause of action for conspiracy among the defendants to commit a tortious act towards the spouse and that any member of the conspiracy committed tortious acts in Florida in furtherance of the conspiracy. If the spouse succeeds, all conspirators are subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. Amersham Enters., Inc. v. Hakim-Daccah, 333 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); Wilcox v. Stout, 637 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Acts of a Conspirator in Florida

Under the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction, “acts of a co-conspirator performed in a forum state in furtherance of a conspiracy create sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over a remote co-conspirator, even when that co-conspirator had no other direct contacts with the forum state.” Naomi Price & Jason Jarvis, Conspiracy Jurisdiction, 76 Stanford Law Rev. 403 (2024); Elizabeth Alexander et al. v. President Donald J. Trump, Case No. 4D2024-1983 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 12, 2025) (J. Artau, concurring).

A state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to punish a conspiracy where it is consummated because there is “a constructive presence in a state, distinct from a personal presence, by which a crime may be consummated.” Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 362 (1912).

If a plaintiff successfully alleges a conspirator committed tortious acts in Florida to further the conspiracy, all coconspirators are subject to personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute. NHB Advisors, Inc. v. Czyzyk, 95 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); section 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat.

Intra-Corporate Conspiracy Doctrine Doesn’t Protect Unincorporated Associations

The intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine doesn’t protect nonresident members of an unincorporated association to which a spouse accused of a conspiracy to commit a tortious act may belong. Elizabeth Alexander et al. v. President Donald J. Trump, Case No. 4D2024-1983 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 12, 2025) (J. Artau, concurring). For personal jurisdiction, an unincorporated association is not a separate legal entity from its members. Unlike partnerships, unincorporated associations:

are a legal enigma in Florida. Although we can talk about them, define them, pledge allegiance to them and contribute money to them (often for tax deductions), we cannot sue them. We can only attack their members, Johnston v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 1285, 134 So. 563 (Fla. 1931). Until the legislature chooses to change the legal status of unincorporated fraternal or social associations, we must operate within the strictures of established law.

Guyton v. Howard, 525 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)

Individual members of an unincorporated association are personally liable for tortious acts they individually commit or participate in, or which they authorize, assent to, or ratify. In contrast, the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine provides it’s impossible for a single legal entity (the corporation and its agents) to conspire with itself. Dickerson v. Alachua County Commission, 200 F. 3d 761 (11th Cir. 2000); Mancinelli v. Davis, 217 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Trump Defamation Case Against the Pulitzer Prize Board: Conspiracy Theory of Personal Jurisdiction

A non-divorce civil defamation case Donald J. Trump brought against the unincorporated Pulitzer Prize Board and its nonresident board members illustrates now nonresident individuals and entities could face exposure to personal jurisdiction in a Florida state court divorce case. Elizabeth Alexander et al. v. President Donald J. Trump, Case No. 4D2024-1983 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 12, 2025).

Factual Background

President Donald J. Trump, then a Florida resident, sued the Pulitzer Prize Board and other defendants for defamation and conspiracy based on “FAKE NEWS” – a statement the Pulitzer Prize Board issued. The Board issued the statement at issue after awarding The Washington Post and The New York Times the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for articles on purported Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and alleged connections to Trump. He demanded the Board strip the papers of the Pulitzer Prize.

Complaint Allegations

President Trump alleged members of the Pulitzer Prize Board, including non-residents, conspired with Neil Brown, a Florida resident and prominent media figure who leads the Poynter Institute, to defame him.

After Trump demanded the board retract the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting due to corrections made by The Washington Post, the board did not act publicly, but instead convened to reconsider the award.

Key members allegedly worked together to craft a statement in response to Trump’s letters, which the board then approved unanimously for publication. This statement lies at the heart of Trump’s defamation claim.

Trump further claimed, despite his repeated requests, the board privately collaborated to finalize and approve the statement, which he alleged falsely suggested a connection between his campaign and Russian election interference, despite clear evidence to the contrary. He argued the defendants’ conspiratorial actions caused him harm.

Holding

Held: applying the Venetian Salami test for personal jurisdiction, the President met his burden to prove personal jurisdiction could be exercised over the nonresident defendants under the long-arm statute and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989); Mitchell v. Race, 396 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2024). Under Florida’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause, the Florida state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over 19 defendants, even though only one defendant resided in Florida.

Trump’s operative pleading sufficiently pled that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him. Further, the defendants issued the website public statement in response to the requests of a Florida resident—Trump. They did so in a meeting attended remotely by a Florida resident who also conducted an editing review of the proposed website statement while in Florida.

The nonresident defendants knew defendant Brown was committing overt acts in furtherance of the asserted conspiracy to defame the President in Florida, so could reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Florida. Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund v. Lloyds Banking Group PLC, 22 F. 4th 103 (2d Cir. 2021).

Specific Allegations of Conspiracy Are Required

General allegations of conspiracy are not enough. A claim for civil conspiracy must include clear, positive, and specific allegations, including how the entity conspired with the other defendants to facilitate the tortious conduct. See Parisi v. Quadri de Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Abdo v. Abdo, 263 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over two business entities to whom siblings transferred websites, where plaintiffs failed to make any specific allegations the entities breached a fiduciary duty, aided and abetted such a breach, or conspired to facilitate one).

Use Affidavits or Declarations to Support Dismissal When Family Law Pleading Alleges Basis for Personal Jurisdition

A spouse may allege various grounds to pull a foreign corporation or trust into a Florida divorce. Regardless of the grounds, however, the spouse and defending entity, more likely than not, will need to get sworn affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury. Affidavits or declarations from people with knowledge can help the judge decide threshold jurisdictional issues.

Fountain Pen Lined Notebook. Family Law Pleadings. Allege Personal Jurisdiction.

Checklist for challenges to personal jurisdiction:

Has the family law pleading alleged a basis for personal jurisdiction over the entity?
Is there a proper basis to proceed against the entity in Florida state court?
- Corporations: look to the state of incorporation and principal place of business.
- Partnerships/LLCs: look to the residence of the partners/members.
- Trusts: look to the situs of the trust.
- Unincorporated Associations: Are there sufficient allegations a member spouse conspired with nonresident members to commit a tortious act that could support long-arm jurisdiction?
What is the conduct or asset at issue in the family law proceeding?
What does the party specifically allege the entity allegedly did to bring it into the family law action?
Does the alleged basis for the cause of action arise out of the entity’s conduct in or directed to Florida?
Has the spouse controlled and operated the entity and its assets and debts and, if so, how?
Issues can be tricky where declaratory or injunctive relief or sequestration of assets is sought.

Sampson Collaborative Law