Manus v. ManusManus v. Manus
This appeal is taken from an order of the trial court dismissing three corporate defendants from a divorce action.
Appellant, plaintiff below, filed this action against her husband seeking a divorce, alimony, and support for a minor. Named as defendants were a number of corporations, including, Maklaw Corporation, Adobe Brick and Supply Co. and Ocean Holding Ltd., who are appellees in this appeal.
Appellant alleges in her complaint that Appellee-Maklaw is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida, and is doing business in the State of Florida through its wholly owned subsidiary, Adobe Brick and Supply Co. Appellant further alleges that Appellee-Adobe Brick and Supply Co. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida and is owned by the Appellee-Maklaw.
Appellant alleges that the defendant-husband is a majority stockholder in Maklaw. Appellant further alleges that the defendant-husband has threatened to remove his assets from the state and country, if necessary, so as to avoid payment of alimony and prayed that the court would restrain said corporations from disposing of any assets or removing the same from the state.
The defendant-husband was served with process by constructive service. He has not appeared personally.
Appellee-Maklaw is a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in the State of Florida. Service was made on Maklaw by serving the president of the corporation while he was in this state en route from New York to the Bahamas.
The trial court granted the appellee-foreign corporations’ motions to quash the service of process and to dismiss the complaint as to these corporations. This appeal is taken from that order.
Appellant admits the insufficiency of service of process on Ocean Holding Ltd. The defendant-husband owns no stock in Adobe Brick and Supply Co.; consequently, it was not a proper party-defendant.
We cannot deal with appellant‘s claims of proper service of process on Maklaw under either the “minimum contacts in Florida” or the “doing of business in Florida” theory.
The exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of Florida over a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in Florida is limited to those instances which do not offend the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The first requirement which must be satisfied is a showing that the cause of action arose out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to the activities of the foreign corporation in this state. This requirement is set forth in specific terms in
The court properly dismissed these foreign corporations from this cause.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C.J., ANDREWS, J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.