ARROWSMITH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. TIMOTHY SHEEHAN, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0368-04T2

ARROWSMITH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

a Florida Corporation,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY SHEEHAN, individually and

as a general partner of Eight Bulls

Partnership, a New Jersey General

Partnership.

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 29, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn, Lisa and S.L. Reisner

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Mercer County, No. DJ-127587-04.

Timothy J. Sheehan, appellant pro se.

Respondent did not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Timothy Sheehan appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a Florida judgment against him. After carefully considering the record and brief, we are satisfied that all of Sheehan's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Nonetheless, we add the following comments.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a New Jersey resident, in a state court of Florida. Defendant was served in New Jersey, and a default was entered initially because of his failure to answer the complaint. Defendant filed a motion in Florida contesting jurisdiction and also arguing the merits of his case. The Florida court found that it had jurisdiction and ultimately entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $29,828.41 on January 29, 2004. Although at one point defendant had filed for bankruptcy, his bankruptcy petition had been dismissed long before the entry of the final judgment in the state court. The Florida judgment was docketed in New Jersey on June 1, 2004, and the order from which defendant appeals was entered on July 28, 2004. The action was based on a written agreement between the parties that provided, among other things, "that venue in any legal proceeding between the parties lies exclusively in Broward County, Florida, and that Florida Law shall govern." The negotiations leading to this agreement were conducted by telephone between defendant in New Jersey and plaintiff in Florida, and the agreement provided that plaintiff would receive a fee for securing financing for defendant's real estate project in Princeton, New Jersey. Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan commitment of $900,000, and defendant executed the application agreement. Later, defendant withdrew the application, and plaintiff sued for its fee, which was payable in Florida under the agreement.

The Florida Legislature confers specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the cause of action arises from "[b]reaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state." Fla. Stat. 48.193 (1)(g). A failure to make a payment contractually required to be made in Florida, as occurred in the present case, satisfies that statute. Global Satellite Commun. Co. v. Sarl Sudline, 849 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. Dis. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2003). The agreement here was silent as to the place of payment, but it is assumed to be the place of residence of the payee under Florida law. Ibid. Furthermore, the combination of facts present here (defendant's solicitation of plaintiff's assistance by placing telephone calls to Florida, defendant's agreement to pay the fee in Florida, and defendant's agreement to the forum selection clause) provide more than adequate support for Florida's exercise of personal jurisdiction based on defendant's contacts with that state during this transaction. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1260 (Fla. 2002); Stomar, Inc. v. Lucky Seven Riverboat Co., 821 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2002); and Nelson v. Ameriquest Techs., Inc., 739 So. 2d 151, 164 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1999).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-0368-04T2

December 9, 2005