Redwood Recovery Services, LLC v. Addle Hill, Inc.
140 So. 3d 1037
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Redwood sued Kirsch and ARE-related entities, alleging breach of promissory note and seeking collection of a judgment.
- ARE formed several LLCs to acquire troubled loans, collect funds, and receive management fees, with ARE serving as trustee of assets for the LLCs’ creditors.
- Redwood obtained a final judgment against ARE, Kirsch, and others jointly and severally for $10,522,916.
- Redwood moved to implead Addle Hill, asserting ARE transferred assets, employees, and rights to Addle Hill; the court granted impleader.
- Addle Hill moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing no Florida contacts and no alter ego relationship; Addle Hill submitted affidavits and evidence.
- Sworn statements from Addle Hill and Redwood conflicted on Florida activities; the trial court sua sponte dismissed on Feb. 1, 2013 and later denied rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Addle Hill | Redwood contends jurisdiction exists due to Florida connections and alter ego theory. | Addle Hill argues lack of Florida contact and no alter ego relationship; insufficient proof. | Jurisdiction issue facts conflict; require evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether the conflicting affidavits/depositions necessitate an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction | Affidavits/depositions show Florida activities and asset transfers. | Statements are inconsistent; no clear basis for jurisdiction without hearing. | An evidentiary hearing is required to resolve material conflicts. |
| Whether the dismissal and rehearing rulings were proper given the procedural history | Court’s dismissal and lack of timely notice prejudiced Redwood; rehearing sought. | Court clearly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and denied rehearing; process followed rules. | Remand for evidentiary hearing; procedural missteps acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (outline for jurisdictional pleading and need for affidavits to challenge jurisdiction)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review of personal-jurisdiction rulings)
- Minchuk v. Reyes, 967 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (requires evidentiary hearing when material facts conflict)
- John Posey Corp. v. R.J.T. Eng’g, Inc., 617 So.2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (conflicting jurisdictional facts demand hearing)
- Vickers v. HBS Collections, LLC, 132 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (jurisdictional issues may require limited evidentiary proceedings)
- Tobacco Merch. Ass’n of U.S. v. Broin, 657 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (proof may come from affidavits or deposition testimony)
- Hernandez v. Bass Aviation, Inc., 453 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (deposition testimony as basis for long-arm jurisdiction)