238 So. 3d 387
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent Marjorie Parmenter, a Florida resident, died owning a 0.2% limited partner interest in Sampson Farm LLP, a Massachusetts limited partnership governed by Massachusetts law.
- Partnership agreement contained a buyout/option provision allowing the partnership (and then remaining partners) to purchase a deceased partner’s interest within specified timeframes.
- Mark Parmenter (widower and former personal representative) filed a probate adversary petition in Florida seeking a declaratory judgment that the estate owned the partnership interest because Sampson Farm failed to assert its option.
- Sampson Farm (Massachusetts entity) moved to quash service/dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion, Sampson Farm answered and asserted lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense, and both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court entered final judgment for Parmenter; on appeal the Third District held the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Sampson Farm and that Sampson Farm had not waived its jurisdictional objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived a timely objection to personal jurisdiction by defending the case | Parmenter argued Sampson Farm sought affirmative relief or otherwise waived by participating in litigation | Sampson Farm argued it timely raised lack of personal jurisdiction and only defended on the merits (answer, affirmative defenses, motion for summary judgment), not seeking affirmative relief | Court held Sampson Farm did not waive the jurisdictional objection; defensive pleadings and summary judgment do not equal affirmative relief (citing Babcock/Berne) |
| Whether Florida courts had personal jurisdiction over Sampson Farm | Parmenter contended probate special procedures or notice provisions justified adjudication in Florida | Sampson Farm argued no Florida contacts alleged; service on Massachusetts agent and no long-arm facts or minimum contacts | Court held pleadings failed to allege long-arm jurisdiction and no evidentiary basis for minimum contacts; trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and judgment reversed, petition dismissed against Sampson Farm |
Key Cases Cited
- Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1998) (timely objection to personal jurisdiction preserved unless defendant seeks affirmative relief)
- Berne v. Beznos, 819 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (defendant may defend merits after timely jurisdictional objection without waiver)
- Wolf Sanitary Wiping Cloth, Inc. v. Wolf, 526 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over foreign corporation with no Florida contacts)
- Execu‑Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Ogi Paper Co. Ltd., 752 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to plead jurisdictional facts under long‑arm statute)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two‑step personal jurisdiction analysis: statutory and due process)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into forum)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts/due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- C.A.T. LLC v. Island Developers, Ltd., 827 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (recedes on some Wolf holdings but not Wolf’s personal jurisdiction holding)