Rollet v. De Bizemont
159 So. 3d 351
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- De Bizemont filed suit against Rollet and others seeking equitable rescission of a real estate contract and alleging fraudulent assignment to a foreign entity to deprive her of property rights.
- The only jurisdictional allegation is that Rollet is sui juris and a foreign resident; both are French citizens residing in Dubai, UAE, with no Florida residence.
- The purchase contract (to be closed in Miami-Dade) was Florida-law governed and attached to the complaint; the challenged assignment identified Aderson Capital, Ltd. as the assignee with a BVIs address.
- Rollet moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, supported by an affidavit detailing no Florida contacts and long-standing residence in Dubai since 2005; De Bizemont did not file a counter-affidavit.
- A non-evidentiary hearing was held; the trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Rollet appealed.
- The court ultimately holds that the complaint fails to establish Florida long-arm jurisdiction and reverses/remands to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint allege sufficient jurisdictional facts under Florida’s long-arm statute? | Bizemont contends sufficient basis exists via the attached Florida contract. | Rollet argues no Florida nexus; no specific jurisdictional facts. | No; insufficient jurisdictional facts are pleaded. |
| Does Rollet’s affidavit shift the burden to Bizemont to prove jurisdiction? | Bizemont must counter with sworn proof; otherwise jurisdiction not proven. | Rollet’s affidavit is legally sufficient to shift burden. | Yes; burden shifted to Bizemont to provide sworn proof. |
| Are minimum contacts with Florida shown to satisfy due process? | Attachment of Florida contract supports contact; fraud claim tied to Florida. | No Florida action by Rollet; no alleged Florida-directed activity related to the fraud. | No; minimum contacts not established. |
| Does absence of a counter-affidavit require dismissal? | Failure to counter affidavits should not automatically end case without record. | Because no sworn proof from Bizemont, dismissal follows per Venetian Salami/Broin. | Yes; absence of counter-affidavit warrants dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-step jurisdictional analysis; burden-shifting with sworn proof)
- Broin v. Tobacco Merchants Ass’n of U.S., 657 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (burden shifts to plaintiff after valid affidavit; need sworn proof)
- Canale v. Rubin, 20 So.3d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (causal connection required for specific jurisdiction)
- Hilltopper Holding Corp. v. Estate of Cutchin, 955 So.2d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (sui juris alone insufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction)