346 So.3d 1215
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Fitesa sued Dexx Medical Industries and Massimo and Eudes Marinoni for unpaid products and alleged both general and personal jurisdiction in Florida.
- Fitesa served the Marinonis by substitute service at an Aventura condominium by leaving process with their daughter; the Marinonis moved to quash and filed sworn affidavits claiming they reside in Venezuela and only vacation in Florida.
- Fitesa moved to strike the Marinonis’ pleadings or their affidavits, alleging the Marinonis committed fraud on the court by falsely denying Florida residency and contacts.
- At an evidentiary hearing the Marinonis testified and Fitesa introduced evidence of significant Florida ties (daughter’s long-term Florida schooling, ownership of a Florida condominium, Florida driver’s licenses, Florida bank/credit accounts, and E-2 visa statements describing Florida business management).
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Marinonis willfully perpetrated fraud on the court to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction, but explicitly stated it was not deciding where the Marinonis’ regular place of abode is (i.e., it was not determining personal jurisdiction).
- The Marinonis and Dexx appealed, claiming the non-final orders were appealable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i); the district court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders did not determine personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fitesa) | Defendant's Argument (Marinonis/Dexx) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the challenged non-final orders “determine the jurisdiction of the person” under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) | The orders did not decide personal jurisdiction; they addressed whether defendants committed fraud on the court | The orders are appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because they concern efforts to defeat jurisdiction and therefore implicate personal jurisdiction | Dismissed: orders did not determine personal jurisdiction; rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) does not apply |
| Whether an appellate court may infer a jurisdictional determination from the record rather than the trial court’s written order | The court’s written order shows it did not decide jurisdiction; appellate review must be confined to the trial court’s order | Appellants urged the record supports a jurisdictional finding and thus appealability | Held: appellate jurisdiction is limited to orders that actually adjudicate jurisdiction in the trial court’s order; courts may not infer such a determination from the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (limits scope of interlocutory appeals under rule 9.130)
- Cole v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (defines "jurisdiction of the person" as service/long-arm issues for rule 9.130 appeals)
- Strauss v. Gorman, 471 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same)
- Page v. Ezell, 452 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (appeal under rule 9.130 not available where issues do not involve service or long-arm statute)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Calonge, 246 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (requires strict construction of rule 9.130 categories and that an order must actually determine jurisdiction)
- DCA of Hialeah, Inc. v. Lago Grande One Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (dismissal where issue was timeliness of service, not validity of service)
- Truist Bank v. De Posada, 307 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (discusses recent amendments to rule 9.130 and preserves prior analysis regarding interlocutory appealability)