McKenzie v. Reuter

Full title: Steve A. McKENZIE and Brenda Lawson, Appellants, v. Donna REUTER and…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 3, 2009

9 So. 3d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 4D08-2738, 4D08-2739, 4D08-2740.

June 3, 2009.

Consolidated appeals of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John J. Hoy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2004-CA-008164XXXXMB-AG.

Lawrence P. Rochefort and Virginia B. Townes of Akerman Senterfitt, West Palm Beach, and Claudia T. Callaway and Christopher T. Koegel of Manatt, Phelps Phillips, LLP, Washington, D.C., for appellants Steve A. McKenzie and Brenda Lawson.

Lawrence P. Rochefort and Virginia B. Townes of Akerman Senterfitt, West Palm Beach, for appellants Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation.

Lawrence P. Rochefort and Virginia B. Townes, Akerman Senterfitt, West Palm Beach, and Benjamin B. Klubes and Valerie L. Hletko of BuckleySandler, LLP, Washington, D.C., for appellants George D. Johnson, Jr., William M. Webster, IV, James W. Whatley, David Gallen, Monica L. Allie, and Wayne W. Hall.

Diana L. Martin and Theodore J. Leopold of Leopold Kuvin, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, E. Clayton Yates of Yates Mancini, LLC, Fort Pierce, Christopher C. Casper and John R. Newcomer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer Smiljanich, P.A., Tampa, and Richard A. Fisher of Richard Fisher Law Office, Cleveland, Tennessee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This court sua sponte consolidates these three cases.

We affirm the non-final order denying appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in all respects but one. With regard to Brenda Lawson, we find that her investment in Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. and operation of a lending company purchased by Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. did not produce sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction over her. We reject the individual appellants' assertion of the corporate shield doctrine because there is a sufficient basis to bring this case under the fraud or intentional misconduct exception to the doctrine. See Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004, 1006 n. 1 (Fla. 1993); Edelstein v. Marlene D'Arcy, Inc., 961 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Nothing in this brief opinion addressing personal jurisdiction should be construed as a ruling on the viability of any claim or defense.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.