02-2655 JOHNSTON V. MEREDITH

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2003 » 02-2655 JOHNSTON V. MEREDITH

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-2655 JOHNSTON V. MEREDITH

Case Date: 02/12/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, 2003

THOMAS B. JOHNSTON, et al., Appellants, vs. WILLIAM MEREDITH, et al., Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-2655 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-11353

Opinion filed February 12, 2003. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Ronald M. Friedman, Judge. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and Ricardo J. Cata and Ariana Fajardo, for appellants. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi and James B. Tilghman, Jr., for appellees.

Before LEVY, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas B. Johnston, as the District Grandmaster and member

of Kappa Sigma Fraternity, Kappa Sigma Fraternity, and Epsilon Beta Chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity appeal from a trial court Order denying their Motion to Quash Service of Process. reverse. William Meredith, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chad Meredith, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Appellants and three of the late Chad Meredith's fraternity brothers. Service of process was effected on the three We

fraternity brothers individually and as members of Epsilon Beta and Kappa Sigma, and on Thomas Johnston as the District Grand Master and a member of Kappa Sigma. Appellants Johnston, Kappa

Sigma, and Beta Epsilon filed a Motion to Quash Service of Process, contending that service of process on Johnston was insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over Kappa Sigma and Epsilon Beta because Kappa Sigma and Epsilon Beta were voluntary,

unincorporated associations which could only be sued by serving all of their members. appeal follows. It is undisputed that Kappa Sigma and Epsilon Beta are voluntary, unincorporated associations. Thus, the trial court The trial court denied the motion. This

erred in denying the Motion to Quash Service of Process because such an association must sue or be sued in the names of the individuals composing it rather than its firm name. See

-2-

Asociacion De Perjudicados Por Inversiones Efectuadas En U.S.A. v. Citibank, F.S.B., 770 So. 2d 1267, 1269 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to

the trial court to grant the motion. Unlike some other jurisdictions 1 that permit an

unincorporated association to sue or be sued in its own name, Florida does not have such an enabling statute. The question

regarding whether these associations should be amenable to suit in Florida is within the province of the legislature, not the judiciary. Reversed and remanded with directions.

For example, in Virginia, "[a]ll unincorporated associations or orders may sue and be sued under the name by which they are commonly known and called, or under which they do business, and judgments and executions against any such association or order shall bind its real and personal property in like manner as if it were incorporated." Va. Code

Download 02-2655 JOHNSTON V. MEREDITH.pdf