From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Watts

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 17, 1998
716 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 97-04388

Opinion filed July 17, 1998.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Crockett Farnell, Judge.

Marcus A. Castillo of Haas Castillo, P. A., Clearwater, Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., of Schropp, Buell Elligett, P. A., Tampa, and Walter E. Aye of Walter Edwards Aye, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Susan W. Fox and Josh Magidson of MacFarlane, Ferguson McMullen, Tampa, for Appellees.


Rosalind Steck White, the plaintiff who brought a shareholder's derivative suit, appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement with June L. Watts and Marketing Productions, Inc. We reverse because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the corporation.

Ms. White filed this action in January, 1996. To meet the requirements of a derivative action the complaint named the corporation and was verified by Ms. White. Although the corporation was a named defendant, Ms. White never served it. In a shareholder's derivative action, the corporation is an indispensable party defendant. See Alario v. Miller, 354 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Without completed service of process, there is no personal jurisdiction over the corporation.

Because no jurisdiction was obtained over the defendant corporation, no judgment could be entered against it.

Reversed.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.


Summaries of

White v. Watts

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 17, 1998
716 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

White v. Watts

Case Details

Full title:ROSALIND STECK WHITE, individually and on behalf of MARKETING PRODUCTIONS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 17, 1998

Citations

716 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Dimick v. Barry

The three entities, now controlled by the personal representative, are hostile to any derivative action. See…