Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1987

DeMetra Hontzas v. Kaufman, Rossin & Co.

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 6, 1987 · No. 87-1311 · Hubbart, Nesbitt and Daniel S. Pearson

513 So. 2d 745; 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2365; 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12244 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Ferenchak v. Zormati (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2021)
Prentice v. PRENTICE COLOUR, INC. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1991)
deMCO TECHNO., INC. v. CC ENGINEERED CASTINGS, INC. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

513 So.2d 745 (1987)

Maria DeMetra HONTZAS and Richard Bite, Appellants,
v.
KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO., Appellee.

No. 87-1311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 6, 1987.

*746 Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Lloyd R. Schwed, Miami, Baxley, Dillard & Dauphin, Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.

Stanley M. Newmark, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review which denied the appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is reversed upon a holding that the plaintiff's allegations that the appellants engaged it, a Florida firm, to perform accounting services in connection with the evaluation of an Alabama estate and property located in Alabama with the implicit understanding that payment for these services would be forwarded to the accountants in Florida and the explicit understanding that the agreement between the parties would be governed by the laws of the State of Florida are not, without more, sufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction over the appellants, Alabama residents. Herman v. Sunset Commercial Bank, 481 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).^[1] Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to set aside the default entered against the appellants and dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

NOTES

[1] At the appellants' request, we judicially noticed the record and briefs filed in this court in the Herman case and determined that the guaranty contract there involved contained a choice-of-Florida-law clause.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.