Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings, LLC v. Estate of Jackson ex rel. Jackson-Platts
110 So. 3d 6
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- The Estate obtained a $110 million default judgment against two remaining defendants in nursing home litigation.
- The Estate filed motions to implead sixteen new defendants, including the three appellants, in proceedings supplementary under section 56.29, Florida Statutes (2010).
- The trial court granted impleader and ordered the new defendants to show cause why they should not be liable for the judgments.
- Appellants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction due to no service of process with an impleader complaint.
- At hearing, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that jurisdiction existed under section 56.29; a written order followed.
- The appellate issue includes whether the nonfinal order denying dismissal is appealable and whether 56.29 controls over the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal jurisdiction over impleaded parties requires an impleader complaint and service. | Estate argues 56.29 procedures suffice without an impleader complaint served on defendants. | Appellants contend civil rules require an impleader complaint with service to establish jurisdiction. | No requirement for a served impleader complaint; 56.29 controls and supports jurisdiction. |
| Whether the nonfinal order denying dismissal is appealable. | Estate argues appellate review is available for this jurisdictional ruling. | Appellants rely on general non-appealability of impleader orders in proceedings supplementary. | The order is reviewable; the court has jurisdiction to review personal-jurisdiction ruling. |
| Whether the procedural framework for 56.29 governs over the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. | Rules apply except where statute provides contrary procedure; 56.29 governs modification and impleader. | Civil rules should apply to impleader and service. | 56.29 controls the procedure; the statutory method is valid absent contrary rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boats Express, Inc. v. Thackeray, 978 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (improper service deprived defendant of hearing; sua sponte steps insufficient)
- Forman v. Great American Resorts of Florida, 929 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (third party not properly impleaded when no impleader or service; not a proper appeal)
- Machado v. Foreign Trade, Inc., 544 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (new defendant must be fully impleaded and given fair opportunity to present claims)
- Warren v. Se. Leisure Sys., Inc., 522 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (review not available when party did not challenge jurisdiction at dismissal)
- Sverdahl v. Farmers & Merchants Sav. Bank, 582 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (cases where impleaded parties challenged jurisdiction; examines context)
- Regent Bank v. Woodcox, 636 So.2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (impleader by motion and affidavit permitted under 56.29)
- Exceletech, Inc. v. Williams, 597 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1992) (im-pleaded defendant need only fair notice and opportunity to present its case)
- Rosenfeld v. TPI Int’l Airways, 630 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (supplemental proceedings do not require a formal complaint to establish jurisdiction)