Legal Opinion

Carter v. Kingsley Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 4, 1991No. 90-3254PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZEHMER, Judge.

Paul and Holly Carter appeal a deficiency judgment and an order taxing fees and costs, contending that the judgment and order are void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. We hold that the judgment and order are void due to the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the Carters, and therefore reverse and remand with directions to vacate the deficiency judgment and the order taxing fees and costs.

Kingsley Bank filed a complaint against Paul and Holly Carter1 alleging that they had defaulted under the terms of a promissory note and mortgage…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Stewart v. EatonMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Shurden v. ThomasDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1961
  4. NCNB NAT. BK., FLA. v. Pyramid Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  5. Matz v. O'CONNELLDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Archer v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  2. State v. RodriguezDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API