Personal Jurisdiction Florida Archives • Sampson Collaborative Law

Lighthouse Water Corporation or Trust Challenges to Service of Process or Jurisdiction.

Corporation or Trust Challenges to Service of Process and Jurisdiction

By Michael P. Sampson (part 1 of 8) This section introduces corporation or trust challenges to service of process and jurisdiction in Florida divorce. What corporation or trust challenges to service of process or jurisdiction are available to get out of a Florida divorce case? This series discusses corporation or trust challenges to service of process and jurisdiction foreign corporations or trusts sued in a Florida divorce may assert to secure dismissal. The Problem: Foreign Corporations or Trusts Sued in Florida Divorce The president of a corporation, manager of a limited liability company, trustee of a family trust, or principal of another business entity receives a summons in a Florida family law case. One spouse contends the other’s control, ownership of an interest in, or history of substantial business with the entity requires its joinder as a party. The suing spouse may contend joinder is necessary for the court to transfer or sell real property or other assets from the entity to the spouse. The foreign corporation or trust a spouse sued in the Florida divorce would like to challenge jurisdiction or service of process. Why Would a Spouse Want to Join a Trust? A spouse who sues a trust may contend the trust must be joined because the spouse claims a direct or equitable interest in the trust or may attack the other spouse’s creation or use of a trust or entity as an attempt to manipulate the distribution of property in the divorce. See, e.g., Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (improper for husband to place marital funds in an irrevocable trust as a “stratagem” to manipulate equitable distribution). The Georgia Supreme Court, in Gibson v. Gibson, 301 Ga. 622, 801 SE 2d 40 n. 4 (2017), distinguishing Schneider, rejected a wife’s claim that $3.2 million her husband moved into irrevocable trusts should be equitably divided in their divorce. No evidence established he formed or funded the trusts when he knew she was contemplating divorce or with the actual intent to hinder or defraud her. He did not actively conceal the transfers from her. He delivered dominion and control of the assets that funded the trusts to the trustee before she filed for divorce. A wife’s request to reach assets of an irrevocable life insurance trust in her divorce similarly failed in Vanderlugt v. Vanderlugt, 429 P. 3d 1269 (New Mexico Ct. App. 2018). Before the couple married, the husband set the trust up for legitimate purposes. She never argued he set up the trust for an improper or fraudulent purpose or had fraudulently transferred assets to the trust, to protect them from being reached in the divorce. Joinder of Trust in Florida Divorce Joining a trust in the divorce action may be necessary to reach trust assets or for judicial efficiency. First, a spouse may contend failing to join a trust and beneficiaries may invite their lawsuits and motions to intervene in proceedings or to challenge the family court’s decisions regarding trust assets. See Crescenze v. Bothe, 4 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); In re Trust of Wines, 355 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Second, without joinder, the divorce court may have no jurisdiction in the divorce to consider if trust assets may be marital. See, for example, Nicks v. Nicks, 241 N.C.App. 487, 774 S.E.2d 365 (2015), in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals found the trial court had no jurisdiction to order equitable division of assets a husband and wife conveyed to an irrevocable trust because the trust was not joined as a party. The Challenge: The Corporation or Trust Wants Out of the Divorce Case So, how may the corporation or trust get out of the family law case? In this series, we discuss corporate challenges to service of process and jurisdiction that may be available to secure dismissal. Due Process: Service of Process and Personal Jurisdiction Over A Corporation or Trust For a family law judge in Florida to adjudicate a spouse’s claims over a corporation or trust, the spouse must satisfy due process requirements. First, service of process over the entity or trust must be sufficient. Second, there must be a basis for personal jurisdiction over the entity. See Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006) and Scott-Lubin v. Lubin, 49 So. 3d 838, 840 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Service of process and personal jurisdiction are two distinct but related elements of due process protections. See Ulloa v. CMI, Inc., 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2013) (discussing difference between service of process, personal jurisdiction, and subpoena power). Both valid service of process and a basis for personal jurisdiction are necessary before a foreign corporation or trust must answer a claim brought in a Florida family law case. The next sections discuss challenges by corporations and trusts to jurisdiction and service of process. Questions About Corporations or Trusts in Florida Divorce? For questions about personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations and trusts, and opportunities in Florida Collaborative Divorce to resolve issues globally, contact Michael P. Sampson. Related Blog Posts:

Corporation or Trust Challenges to Service of Process and Jurisdiction Read More »

Fish caught in green net. Challenge to Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Process. Photo by Vikas Anand Dev (Unsplash)

Challenge to Service of Process in Florida Divorce

By Michael P. Sampson (part 2 of 8) This section discusses challenges to service of process in Florida divorce. Service of Process – Effective Service is Required A corporation or trust a spouse names in a Florida divorce may first consider a challenge to service of process. Through effective service of process, the spouse notifies the business entity or trust of the spouse’s legal claims against it. When the spouse accomplishes effective service, a court may exercise its authority over the entity or trust if the court has jurisdiction to resolve the claims. Service of Process: Can the Corporation or Trust Challenge Service? An entity sued in a family law lawsuit may consider challenges to service of process. Proper service of the family law papers on the entity must happen before the Florida court can acquire personal jurisdiction over the entity. See Fla. Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516; Fla. Family Law Rules of Civ. P. 12.080(a) and 12.180. See also Thompson v. State/Dept. Revenue, 867 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction without proper service of process, and the burden to prove proper service is upon the person who seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction). Entry of an order adjudicating rights of a party not properly served is reversible error. See Deluca v. King, 197 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (default judgment entered against party not served with process is void); Varveris v. Alberto M. Carbonell, P.A., 773 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (judgment debtor’s wife was not properly brought before the court to set aside allegedly fraudulent transfers). Actual Notice of Lawsuit Is No Substitute for Proper Service of Process Suppose a corporation or trust knows there’s a Florida divorce action pending and one spouse wants to pull in the entity. Is service of process still necessary? The answer is yes. The spouse must still properly serve the corporation or trust. Actual notice of a lawsuit doesn’t discharge a spouse’s burden to have the nonparty served with process. See In re: Trust of Wines, 355 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023); Bedford Computer Corp. v. Graphic Press, Inc., 484 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1986); McDaniel v. FirstBank P.R., 96 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Moss v. Estate of Hudson, 252 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 922 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Napoleon B. Broward Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes Due, 33 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1948). Did the Suing Spouse Properly Issue and Serve the Summons? A summons, properly issued and served, is how a court acquires jurisdiction over an entity. See Seymour v. Panchita Inv., Inc., 28 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Defects in the summons may make service void. Id. (attempt to serve corporation with summons naming person individually was void to effect service on the corporation of which he was registered agent); Ineniera v. Freytech, 210 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). An entity, through sufficient affidavits, may challenge service and obtain a hearing to present evidence on the effectiveness of service. See Panama City Gen. P’ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., LLC, 109 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affidavits supported partnership’s assertion that managing partner the process server’s affidavit identified as having been served moved from his home to assisted living nursing facility two days before alleged service). There are strict requirements for good service of process on the correct person. A spouse who attempts to serve a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in Florida must show two things. First, the spouse must show compliance with the requirements for service. Second, the spouse must show service of process on a person qualified to accept such process. Courts strictly construe statutory requirements and require strict compliance with them for effective service. See Grange Insurance v. Walton Transport, 2014 WL 1917987 *3, Case No. 3:13-cv-977-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2014); Estela v. Cavalcanti, 76 So. 3d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard, 954 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); S.T.R. Indus., Inc. v. Hidalgo Corp., 832 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). So, deficiencies in meeting the requirements invites challenges to service of process. Service of Process Under the Hague Convention Failure to comply with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters articles 2-6, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 (Hague Convention), may invalidate service of process. See SDS-IC v. Florida Concentrates International, LLC, 157 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (service of process quashed because it did not comply with Florida law or China’s Central Authority under the Hague Convention). But note Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention permits service of process by mail. See Portalp International SAS v. Zuloaga, 198 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Has the spouse validly served the right person under Florida law? A corporation can’t make it impossible for a spouse to comply strictly with the statutory requirements for service of process. So the corporation cant’ list a private mailbox or “virtual office,” if there are no directors, officers, corporate employees, or registered agent there. Further, the entity can’t evade service by pretending to maintain a registered agent that section 48.091, Florida Statutes requires. The party seeking service may serve such corporation under section 48.081(3)(b) at another physical address for the corporation, its officers, directors, or registered agent discoverable through public records, under the general service of process statute (section 48.031). See Diaz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-21045-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. January 8, 2015) (setting aside a clerk’s default because attempted service at a local Winn-Dixie deli counter was not the corporation’s principal place of business, where its high level officers directed, controlled, and coordinated its activities); Natures Way Marine, LLC v. Everclear of Ohio, Ltd., No. 12-0316-CG-M (S.D. Ala. January 18, 2013) (applying Florida law); TID Services, Inc. v. Dass, 65 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing order denying motion to vacate for lack of jurisdiction a default judgment, where summons was left at UPS store where defendant maintained a private mailbox). Defendants successfully challenged service

Challenge to Service of Process in Florida Divorce Read More »

Family Law Pleadings Must Allege Basis for Personal Jurisdiction. Photo by Todd Rhines (Unsplash) Hand outstretched to sunset.

Family Law Pleadings: Allege Personal Jurisdiction

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure / Michael P Sampson

By Michael P. Sampson (part 3 of 8) This section discusses the importance of alleging personal jurisdiction in family law pleadings. 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. That means a spouse who wants 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.”) When pleadings are deficient, dismissal is right. Thus, three corporate respondents in Fishman convinced the appeals court the trial judge failed to grant their motion to dismiss. In Fishman, a wife who claimed interest in the corporations filed a petition lacking a legally sufficient basis for the Florida court to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over them. Her claim a Florida court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign company merely because some of its assets are marital property in a Florida marriage didn’t meet the test. So, too, did her claim the Florida court had jurisdiction, because she and her husband contributed marital funds and effort in the corporate respondents, which caused them to grow in value. Dismiss When Pleadings Fail to Allege Sufficient Facts for Long-Arm Personal Jurisdiction Courts have dismissed family law pleadings that failed to allege sufficient facts to bring the case within the long-arm statute. For example, in Morgan v. Morgan, 679 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a mom’s unsworn pleading alleging a nonresident dad failed to provide child support to children in Florida fell short. She failed to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction under the Long Arm Statute. Hollowell v. Tamburro, 991 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Years later, 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, an ex-wife’s family law pleading fell short in Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 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 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

Family Law Pleadings: Allege Personal Jurisdiction Read More »

Personal Jurisdiction Long arm statute or alter ego. Colorful hands. Photo by Tim Mossholder (Unsplash)

Long-Arm Statute or Alter Ego? Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation in Florida Divorce

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure / Michael P Sampson

By Michael P. Sampson (part 4 of 8) This section discusses Florida’s Long-Arm Statute and the Alter Ego basis for personal jurisdiction over a corporation or trust in a Florida divorce. A spouse may attempt to bring in a corporate entity or trust into the divorce either under the Florida Long-Arm Statute or on an alter-ego theory. To pull in the foreign corporation or trust, the spouse must plead a basis for Florida long-arm jurisdiction. Alternatively, the spouse may allege the Florida court should act against the foreign entity because it’s merely the other spouse’s alter ego. Under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute, the spouse must pass a two-pronged test for establishing personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity. Instead, the spouse may assert personal jurisdiction is established because the entity is merely the “alter ego” of the other spouse. Personal jurisdiction refers to whether the actions of an individual or business entity permit the Florida court to exercise jurisdiction in a lawsuit naming the individual or business entity. See Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006). See generally section 48.193, Florida Statutes; White v. Pepsico, Inc., 568 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1990); Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction, “due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum”). Florida Long Arm Statute First prong: Specific Jurisdiction or General Jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction Long-arm jurisdiction over a foreign corporation or entity may be specific. See sections 48.193(1)(a)1-9, Florida Statutes. Specific jurisdiction is where the defendant either personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in those subsections. Specific jurisdiction occurs “when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” White v. Pepsico, Inc., 568 So. 2d 886, 888 n.3 (Fla. 1990) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984)). General Jurisdiction Alternatively, long-arm jurisdiction may be general. See section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes. General jurisdiction may lie when a defendant is “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity” in Florida. See Marina Dodge, Inc. v. Quinn, 134 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)(good analysis of specific and general jurisdiction, resulting in reversal of order denying motion to dismiss personal injury suit for lack of personal jurisdiction). Unlike specific jurisdiction, “general jurisdiction” lies over a defendant “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state.” Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes. There’s no “connexity” required between the nonresident’s activities in Florida and the cause of action the plaintiff asserts in the complaint. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1260 n.7 (Fla. 2002); White, 568 So. 2d at 889 n.4 (“‘Connexity’ is the term courts have adopted to mean a link between a cause of action and the activities of a defendant in the forum state.”); Am. Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). For general jurisdiction, facts about the nonresident’s contacts must be extensive and pervasive. Reliance Steel Products Co. v. Watson, ESS, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F. 2d 587 (3d Cir.1982). When a spouse fails to plead any basis under the long-arm statute or under an alter-ego theory, dismissal is appropriate. For example, in Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), the trial court should have dismissed a former wife’s action against her nonresident former husband. She asked the Florida court to adjudicate her claims to domesticate and enforce a Hawaiian divorce judgment. But Ms. Murphy failed to plead and establish a basis under Florida’s long-arm statute for specific or general personal jurisdiction over her former husband. He countered the complaint with a sworn motion to dismiss. She failed to refute his sworn statements he was a North Carolina resident whose prior residency in Florida was incidental to military service. Further, she failed to allege and establish a sufficient basis for general jurisdiction. She had to show, but couldn’t, that he presently engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. Specific or General Jurisdiction under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute: Are the Entity’s Florida Contacts the Basis for the Spouse’s Claims Against It? If an entity’s contacts with Florida are also the basis for the suit, those contacts may establish specific jurisdiction. For example, see section 48.193(1)(a)1-9, Florida Statutes; Marina Dodge, Inc. v. Quinn, 134 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (affidavits revealed few contacts between Florida and the defendant, which had engaged in isolated transactions with Florida companies, mostly over the Internet, without having targeted Florida for business); Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (applying traditional minimum contacts analysis, whether or not the Internet is involved); Canale v. Rubin, 20 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). In determining specific jurisdiction, courts consider: See Corporacion Aero Angeles, S.A. v. Fernandez, 69 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Alternatively, if an entity’s contacts with Florida are not also the basis for the claims, jurisdiction must arise from the entity’s general, more persistent, but unrelated present contacts with Florida. Fla. Stat. §48.193(2). For more about long-arm jurisdiction – specific or general – keep reading here. Questions About Corporations and Trust in Florida Divorce? For questions about personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations and trusts and opportunities in Florida Collaborative Divorce to resolve issues globally, contact Michael P. Sampson of Sampson Collaborative Law. Related Blog Posts:

Long-Arm Statute or Alter Ego? Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation in Florida Divorce Read More »

Long-Arm Jurisdiction: Specific or General?

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure / Michael P Sampson

By Michael P. Sampson (part 5 of 8) This section discusses specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Introduction: Specific and General Jurisdiction In Florida family law, extending long-arm jurisdiction to a foreign corporation, trust, or nonresident entity requires satisfying a two-pronged test. First, a spouse must establish a basis under Florida’s long-arm statute. Specific jurisdiction applies when the entity commits one of the enumerated acts, such as conducting business or committing a tort in Florida. The spouse must show the claims arise directly from the acts. General jurisdiction requires current, continuous, and systematic contacts so substantial that the entity is essentially at home in Florida. For general jurisdiction, a spouse doesn’t need to show a connection to the claims against the nonresident entity, but the threshold is far stricter than for specific jurisdiction. Pleadings must allege specific, concrete jurisdictional facts, or dismissal is likely. Second, to satisfy federal due process concerns, the spouse must show the entity has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. That showing includes establishing the entity purposefully availed and reasonable anticipated being haled into court in Florida. Exceptions include contractual consent through forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses. Spouses attempting to join out-of-state entities must plead precise, current jurisdictional ties and prove due-process compliance. Without careful and detailed allegations, dismissal is a real risk. Precision is essential when reaching across state lines. First Prong: Is Personal Jurisdiction Over the Corporation or Entity Appropriate Under Florida’s Long Arm Statute? The first prong of the two-pronged test for bringing a foreign corporation or trust into a Florida family law action is establishing long-arm personal jurisdiction. Does the family law pleading allege specific or general jurisdiction? Long-arm jurisdiction over a foreign corporation or entity a spouse names in a family law matter may be specific or general. Jurisdiction – Specific or General? First, specific jurisdiction under sections 48.193(1)(a)1-9, Florida Statutes attaches where the defendant entity either “personally or through an agent does any of the acts” enumerated in those subsections.See also Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (dismissing ex-wife’s action to domesticate and enforce Hawaiian divorce decree against nonresident ex-husband, for failure to establish specific or general personal jurisdiction). In contrast, general jurisdiction under section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes lies where the nonresident is “engaged in substantial and not isolated activity.” Such activity must be present activity, not past or speculative activity. See Murphy v. Murphy. For general jurisdiction, section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes requires no connection between a petitioner’s claim and the foreign defendant’s Florida activities. Vos, B.V. v. Payen, 15 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Specific Jurisdiction: Acts Subjecting Entity to Florida’s Jurisdiction An entity that personally or through an agent does certain acts submits itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of Florida for any action arising from the acts. Fla. Stat. §§48.193(1)(a) 1-9. These acts include: The entity was engaged in solicitation or service activities within Florida (48.193(1)(a)6.a); or Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the entity anywhere were used or consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use (48.193(1)(a)6.b). Seek Dismissal If Suing Spouse Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts to Support Specific Jurisdiction Insufficiently alleging jurisdictional facts against an entity gives grounds for dismissal in the family action. See Fishman, Inc. v. Fishman, 657 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hollowell v. Tamburro, 991 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In Fishman, the trial court should have dismissed wife’s claims against husband’s three out-of-state corporations. Her petition failed to allege a legally sufficient basis for Florida to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the corporations. Dismissal When Pleadings Allege No Sufficient Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Other cases support dismissal when a party fails to allege a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. For example, see Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (ex-wife alleged no basis for long-arm jurisdiction over nonresident ex-husband). Likewise, in Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), the court reversed denial of nonresident husband’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The pleadings insufficiently alleged a basis for personal jurisdiction over him. General jurisdiction: What is Substantial and Not Isolated Activity? Florida courts have jurisdiction over a foreign entity engaged in “substantial and not isolated activity” within Florida. It doesn’t matter if the activity is interstate, intrastate, or otherwise. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if the claim arises from that activity. In Florida, substantial and not isolated activity means “continuous and systematic general business contact” with Florida. Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts, Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). See also Olson v. Robbie, 141 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Vos, B.V. v. Payen, 15 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Gadea v. Star Cruises, Ltd., 949 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). General jurisdiction exists only when the “continuous and systematic” in-forum contacts are so continuous and systematic as to render the foreign entity “essentially at home” in the forum state. Ferrari, SPA v. Romanelli, 402 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 US 117, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014) Standard for Establishing General Jurisdiction is More Demanding Than Specific Jurisdiction The standard for establishing general personal jurisdiction is more demanding than the standard for establishing specific personal jurisdiction. Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011);Ferrari, SPA v. Romanelli, 402 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). “General jurisdiction requires far more wide-ranging contacts with the forum state than specific jurisdiction, and it is thus more difficult to establish” Canale v. Rubin, 20 So. 3d 463, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). If a plaintiff fails to meet the due process test for specific jurisdiction, the test for general jurisdiction will rarely be met. Marina Dodge, Inc. v. Quinn, 134 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). General Jurisdiction under Long-Arm Statute: Extensive and Pervasive Current Substantial and Not Isolated Activity For general jurisdiction, Florida’s long-arm statute requires it be based on current (not exclusively past) substantial and not isolated activity. Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022);

Long-Arm Jurisdiction: Specific or General? Read More »

Florida Family Law Alter Ego Jurisdiction. Woman behind sheer curtain. Photo by Ian Keefe (Unsplash)

Alter Ego Basis for Jurisdiction in Florida Family Law Action

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure / Michael P Sampson

ByMichael P. Sampson (part 6 of 8) This section discusses the alter ego basis for jurisdiction in a Florida family law action. Alter Ego Basis for Jurisdiction: Piercing the Corporate Veil The two-step process for establishing long arm jurisdiction does not apply when a spouse is traveling under a different theory: the alter ego basis for jurisdiction. The spouse may allege the entity is the other spouse’s alter ego and the Florida court should pierce the corporate veil of the entity. In a family court action, a court may pierce the corporate veil if a spouse can prove both that the entity is a “mere instrumentality” or alter ego of the other spouse and that the other spouse engaged in “improper conduct” in the formation or use of the entity. A corporation is a separate legal entity, distinct from the persons comprising them. Gasparini v. Pordomingo, 972 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); BD Catering Bars SL v. Rosado, Case No. 25-cv-21553-BLOOM/Elfenbein (SD Fla. Sept 5, 2025). Those who seek to pierce the corporate veil carry a heavy burden. Eagle v. Benefield-Chappell, Inc., 476 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). It’s not enough to establish alter-ego that companies use the same logo and intellectual property under a licensing agreement. See, e.g., Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc. v. Dictan, 327 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). In Schumacher, a Delaware holding company wasn’t the alter ego of affiliated entities. The companies kept separate books and records. They had separate boards of directors. The holding company didn’t control the affiliates’ business operations. So…what facts establish a nonresident entity is the alter ego of a Florida resident? When Have Courts Found Nonresident Alter Egos Are Subject to Florida’s Jurisdiction? Florida courts have permitted a nonresident shareholder of a resident corporation to be subjected to jurisdiction, when the claimant alleges that basis and evidence establishes the nonresident entity has operated as the mere instrumentality (or “alter ego”) of the resident shareholder or entity and the other party engaged in improper conduct in the formation of the entity. See Bellairs v. Mohrmann, 716 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1984). See also 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). Sufficient Allegations Required to Pursue Piercing the Corporate Veil Under the Alter Ego Basis for Jurisdiction To establish an alter ego basis for jurisdiction, a suing spouse must allege facts sufficient to “pierce the corporate veil” of the entity. See Parisi v. Quadri de Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). In Parisi, in an ancillary probate action, the decedent’s sister and personal representative of her estate attempted to allege civil conspiracy by (i) an Argentine man, (ii) his alleged “alter-ego” Delaware limited liability company, and (iii) a Miami cohort. The PR alleged they conspired to steal her dying sister’s Miami Condo. The court discussed the requirements for specifically pleading alter-ego, then dismissed the PR’s complaint against the nonresident with leave to amend. Garcia v. Character Technologies in Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-1903-ACC-UAM, 785 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (MD Fla. May 21, 2025), the court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and allowed the plaintiff to engage in jurisdictional discovery. Without ever using the magic words “alter ego,” the plaintiff had alleged in the complaint facts that could “conceivably” support jurisdiction under an alter ego theory. The plaintiff alleged individual defendants “formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of” an artificial intelligence software company, “personally coded and designed a substantial portion of” the company’s AI Large Language Model, and directed the other company employees with regards to the conduct alleged in the complaint. Further, the plaintiff alleged the individual defendants formed the company to get around Google’s safety protocols and protect Google’s brand before they returned to Google in a deal that left behind “a shell of a company.” The court dismissed the individual defendants ‘ motion to dismiss without prejudice, so the could refile in three months, to allow the plaintiff time to take jurisdictional discovery. Conclusory Allegations Don’t Establish a Basis for Alter Ego Jurisdiction Conclusory allegations a company is the alter ego of a person aren’t sufficient to pierce the veil. Purple Innovation, LLC v. Waykar, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00266-CEH-SPF (MD Fla. August 29, 2025); Duran v. Joekel, Case No. 2:23-cv-558-JES-NPM (MD Fla. May 23, 2024). See also WH Smith, PLC v. Benages & Associates, Inc., 51 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing denial of motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction under the alter ego theory); Woods v. Jorgensen, 522 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Hobbs v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 642 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Qualley v. International Air Serv. Co., 595 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Elements for Piercing the Corporate Veil To “pierce the corporate veil,” a spouse should specifically plead and must prove three factors: (1) the shareholder dominated and controlled the corporation to such an extent that the corporation’s independent existence, was in fact non-existent and the shareholders were in fact alter egos of the corporation; (2) the corporate form must have been used fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and (3) the fraudulent or improper use of the corporate form caused injury to the claimant. In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 166 B.R. 461 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994). See also Seminole Boatyard, Inc. v. Christoph, 715 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Outsider Reverse Corporate Piercing Theory When a corporation’s controlling shareholder has formed or used an entity to defraud creditors, by evading liability for pre-existing obligations, a spouse may invoke the “outsider reverse corporate piercing theory.” Reverse veil piercing bypasses standard liability

Alter Ego Basis for Jurisdiction in Florida Family Law Action Read More »

Jurisdiction Over Property at Issue in Florida Divorce

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure, Property Distribution / Michael P Sampson

By Michael P. Sampson (part 7 of 8) This section discusses important principles related to jurisdiction over property. In Rem Jurisdiction Over Property Located in County Where Florida Divorce Is Pending If property at issue in a divorce case is within the court’s jurisdictional boundaries, it doesn’t matter if the owners or those claiming an interest in the property reside outside Florida. The court has in rem jurisdiction over the property at issue. Jurisdiction in rem, founded on property within the court’s territorial bounds, can substitute for personal jurisdiction. See Stephens, Scott, Florida’s Third Species of Jurisdiction, Vol. 82, No. 3, Florida Bar Journal 10 (March 2008). A court may not exercise in rem jurisdiction to resolve disputes over real property outside the court’s territorial boundary. Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (an action asking the court to act directly on property or title to the property is an in rem action, which must be brought in the county where the land lies). This rule is known as the “local action rule. Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 520 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1988). See also State, Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. Antioch Univ., 533 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Some Actions that Affect Property Located Outside the County May Still Proceed The mere presence of real property as an issue in a case doesn’t make it a local action. Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 520 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1988). Therefore, the local action rule doesn’t limit a court’s in personam jurisdiction to grant relief that may incidentally affect real property located outside the county. For example, in Lallouz v. Lallouz, 695 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the Dade County circuit judge could adjudicate a wife’s claims to a Broward County townhouse condominium her mother-in-law owned. The divorcing couple had paid for the expenses, maintenance, and costs of the condo for years. Concluding the local action rule deprived the court of jurisdiction, the trial judge incorrectly entered a judgment against the wife on her claims against the mother-in-law. Reversing, the Third District distinguished between claims directly and indirectly affecting the property. The wife sought equitable relief, including resulting and constructive trust claims against her mother-in-law. Such equitable claims do not directly affect the property or its title. Ruth v. Department of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1996) Thus, the Dade County judge could have proceeded to decide the wife’s equitable claims. In Rem Jurisdiction Over Property in Florida Divorce An example of in rem jurisdiction over property in a divorce is an action to partition real property or personal property a spouse and another owner, such as a foreign trust or corporation, co-own. Under these circumstances, in rem jurisdiction over the property lies in the circuit court of the county in which the property is physically located. “A partition judgment is unquestionably in rem.” Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In divorce, both the dissolution of marriage and division of property rights may be conducted through in rem jurisdiction. Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1986); Montano v. Montano, 520 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Under section 64.031, Florida Statutes, a spouse owning an interest in real property or personal property may file a partition action against the cotenants, coparceners, or others interested in the lands to be divided. That happened in Martinez v. Martinez, 219 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). A wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage included a partition count against her stepson and corporations her husband created during the marriage. She alleged her husband had been commingling the parties’ marital assets with assets owned by the stepson and corporate respondents. She sought partition of the marital assets, recognition and equitable distribution of her interest in the corporations. Further, she asked the court to claw back and equitably distribute assets transferred to the corporations and stepson. The Fifth DCA held the trial court erred by granting the stepson’s motion for summary judgment on his stepmom’s claims against him. No In Rem Jurisdiction if the Property is Outside the County of the Divorce Action For the divorce court to acquire in rem jurisdiction over property, it isn’t enough for a spouse seeking divorce simply to describe property in the divorce petition. To have power to include provisions in a divorce judgment that affect property rights in such property, the property must lie within the county where the divorce action was filed. Contreras v. Contreras, 336 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Consider the distinction between claims focused on one party’s allegedly wrongful actions and claims focused on direct relief that would affect real property. In a Minnesota case, a son a mom in her 90s claimed Florida had no in rem jurisdiction over Minnesota property identified in the moms’ Florida action against him for protection against exploitation of a vulnerable adult. He asked Minnesota not to docket the Florida judgment. On this point, he lost. His mom claimed he abused his power of attorney after she’d had a stroke. She sought relief centered not around real property, but around his withdrawing over $310,000 and depositing the funds into his personal accounts. Her claims did not implicate in rem jurisdiction. Chubboy v. Chubboy, Case No. A25-0683 (Minn. Ct. App. January 26, 2026). Joinder of Nonparty Co-Owners of Property in Florida Divorce Is Necessary to Adjudicate Their Interests A divorce judge can’t adjudicate property interests of co-owners unless joined as parties. In Bailey v. Bailey, 310 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) a mother-in-Law claimed interest in real property, to be distributed in a divorce. The wife sought partition of the property. After joining mother-in-law as an indispensable party, the wife dropped her partition claim. But the mother-in-law claimed she owned the property with the divorcing couple as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. She moved to intervene, but the trial court denied her

Jurisdiction Over Property at Issue in Florida Divorce Read More »

Black Labrador Taking Oath Raised Paw. Affidavits to Support Challenges to Jurisdiction in Florida Divorce. Image by Fabian Gieske (Unsplash)

Sworn Affidavits to Support Challenges to Jurisdiction in Florida Divorce

Collaborative Divorce, Jurisdiction and Procedure / Michael P Sampson

By Michael P. Sampson (part 8 of 8) This section discusses how important sworn affidavits are to support challenges to jurisdiction in a Florida divorce. Sworn Affidavits or Declarations: Be Prepared! An entity drawn into a family law dispute typically must assemble sworn affidavits or sworn declarations to support challenges to service of process or personal jurisdiction or both. See Fishman, Inc. v. Fishman, 657 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Nonresident defendant corporations or trusts challenging long-arm jurisdiction in a Florida divorce must file sworn affidavits or sworn declarations to support their challenges. But, if the spouse attempting to establish jurisdiction over the nonresident fails to plead a legally sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over it, the burden of refuting jurisdictional facts with affidavits doesn’t shift to the nonresident. Mrs. Fishman’s claims she had an interest in three foreign corporations because she and her husband placed marital funds and labor in them and the corporations increased in value during the marriage were not enough to bring the corporations within the jurisdictional reach of Palm Beach County, Florida. Shifting the Burden with Affidavits Similarly, a defendant’s coming forward with sworn affidavits or declarations to contest jurisdictional allegations a spouse has pleaded shifts the burden to the spouse to prove by affidavit the basis upon which long-arm jurisdiction may be obtained. Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). In Murphy, the trial court should have dismissed a former wife’s action against her nonresident former 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. He challenged her jurisdictional allegations about 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. His sworn affidavit denied he owned Florida property currently, resided in Florida when she filed her action to domesticate and enforce a Hawaiian divorce decree, or maintained substantial, ongoing contacts with Florida. After the Shift… When a party who seeks to pull in a foreign defendant fails to refute or rebut the defendant’s allegations challenging long arm jurisdiction with sworn affidavits or proof, dismissal is appropriate. Unified Medical, LLC v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, 389 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). After the burden shifts, a plaintiff’s unsworn exhibits don’t satisfy the burden to refute or rebut a foreign defendant’s jurisdictional challenges. Ferrari S.P.A. v. Romanelli, 402 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). Courts Derive Facts About Threshold Challenges to Service of Process or Jurisdiction from Sworn Affidavits or Declarations In reviewing a motion to quash service or dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court likely will derive facts from sworn affidavits or sworn declarations to support challenges, transcripts, and other records. See Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing denial of nonresident husband’s motion to dismiss accompanied by his affidavit detailing reasons his wife could not plead sufficient allegations to establish personal jurisdiction over him). Multiple Florida cases illustrate how important sworn affidavits or declarations are. For example, in Hamilton v. Hamilton, 142 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), a family stock purchase agreement provided for mandatory venue and consent to jurisdiction in Florida, but a Michigan stepson’s affidavit refuted many allegations regarding contacts with Florida, independent of the forum selection clause, that could establish the requisite minimum contacts. The plaintiff stepmother filed no response or affidavits refuting stepson’s statements. Similarly, in Marina Dodge, Inc. v. Quinn, 134 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), affidavits before the trial court revealed few contacts between the defendant and Florida. The court in Extendicare, Inc. v. Estate of McGillen, 957 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) relied on affidavits to support challenges to jurisdictional allegations in a complaint. The plaintiff failed to meet its burden to offer sworn proof to contradict the jurisdictional allegations in the affidavit, thus failed to establish a basis for jurisdiction. See also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989), which sets forth the process for determining factual issues raised by a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Bellairs v. Mohrmann, 716 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (following the Venetian Salami procedure regarding the alter ego theory for establishing jurisdiction). Explain Corporate Relationships with Affidavits or Declarations For jurisdiction, how do courts handle foreign entities affiliated with Florida companies? Sworn affidavits and declarations can help judges figure out complex corporate structures. That way, the judges can determine if a spouse’s claims against a foreign entity within the structure is subject to personal jurisdiction. Eight acts or contacts Florida’s long-arm statute lists can subject an entity to specific jurisdiction. The spouse’s action must also “arise from” one or more of the acts or contacts that give rise to specific jurisdiction. “Arise from” means a substantive connection between the basis of the cause of action and activity in Florida. There must be a direct affiliation, nexus, or substantial connection between the basis for the cause of action and the action that falls under the long-arm statute. Schumacher – Merely Sharing Trademarks In The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc. v. Dictan, 327 So. 3d 404(Fla. 3d DCA 2021), a Delaware holding company, principally doing business in Louisiana, supported its motion to dismiss with its vice president’s declaration. The medical malpractice plaintiff alleged insufficient jurisdictional facts to satisfy the long arm statute requirements. The VP’s declaration stating the company was a holding company doing no business in Florida, had no office in Florida, had no employees in Florida, and owned or lease no property in Florida. Further, the VP explained the Delaware holding company did not control its Florida affiliates’ business operations. The entities maintained separate corporate books and records and separate boards of directors. Reversing the trial court, the appellate court accepted the declaration and other record evidence as sufficient to refute the plaintiff’s theories, and ordered the trial judge to dismiss the Delaware holding company.

Sworn Affidavits to Support Challenges to Jurisdiction in Florida Divorce Read More »