DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CORNERSTONE INVESTMENT FUNDING, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

PAINTED POST GROUP, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1907

[January 27, 2016]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Lisa S. Small, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502014CA004263 AH.

Steven A. Matta of Matta Blair, PLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for 

appellant.

Arnold R. Ginsberg of Arnold R. Ginsberg, P.A., Miami, and Jared L. 

Gamberg of Jared L. Gamberg, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cornerstone Investment Funding, LLC (“Cornerstone”), a 

Virginia-based entity, appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 We reverse, concluding that 

Cornerstone lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy 

due process. 

The complaint alleged as follows. Arnold S. Goldin, Inc., loaned

Cornerstone $300,000. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note 

signed by the parties separately in Virginia and Florida. Goldin 

subsequently assigned its interest in the promissory note to appellee,

Painted Post Group, Inc. (“Post Group”), with which Goldin was affiliated. 

Both Goldin and Post Group were located in Palm Beach County. 

1 This Court has jurisdiction based on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). 
2

When Cornerstone failed to make payments on the note, Post Group

filed suit in Palm Beach County against Cornerstone and others for, 

amongst other things, repayment of the loan. The defendants in the action 

below moved for summary judgment, alleging the trial court lacked 

personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants. A predecessor 

judge granted the motion but also granted leave for Post Group to amend 

its complaint.

Post Group filed an amended complaint only against Cornerstone, 

alleging a single count for breach of contract. Cornerstone moved to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, after conflicting jurisdictional 

affidavits were filed by the parties, the trial court held an evidentiary 

hearing. The only witness to testify at the hearing was Arnold Goldin, a 

principal of Arnold S. Goldin, Inc. Arnold Goldin claimed the parties had 

entered into a “verbal agreement” that payments on the promissory note 

would be made to his business address in Palm Beach County. Based on 

Arnold Goldin’s testimony, a successor judge2 concluded that Post Group

had established both jurisdictional facts and minimum contacts between 

Cornerstone and Florida sufficient to assert personal jurisdiction over 

Cornerstone. From that order, Cornerstone brings this appeal.

Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant may be exercised 

only when the following two-pronged test has been satisfied: (1) the 

complaint alleges facts that would subject the defendant to Florida’s “longarm” statute,

3 and (2) the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” to 

meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice such that the 

defendant could ‘“reasonably anticipate being haled into court’” due to its 

actions. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla. 1989)

(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 

(1980)); Henderson v. Elias, 56 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Failure to 

2 Cornerstone argues that the predecessor judge’s grant of summary judgment 

as to personal jurisdiction bound the successor judge to rule in its favor on the 

subsequent motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, since 

that order likewise granted Post Group leave to amend the complaint, no final 

judgment on personal jurisdiction existed for which collateral estoppel would 

apply. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 685 So. 2d 894, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1997). 

3 “A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or 

through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby 

submits himself or herself . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for 

any cause of action arising from any of the following acts . . . . Breaching a 

contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be 

performed in this state.” § 48.193(1)(a)7, Fla. Stat. (2013). 
3

pay on a contract requiring payment in Florida has been found sufficient 

to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction over breach of 

contract actions. Smith Architectural Grp., Inc. v. Dehaan, 867 So. 2d 434, 

436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Post Group’s amended complaint thus meets 

the first prong of the Venetian Salami test.

The mere fact, however, that Cornerstone allegedly breached a contract 

by failing to make payments on the contract in Florida would not 

constitute sufficient minimum contacts with this state to satisfy due 

process. Taskey v. Burtis, 785 So. 2d 557, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) 

(“Factors that go into determining whether sufficient minimum contacts 

exist include the foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct will result in 

suit in the forum state and the defendant’s purposeful availment of the 

forum’s privileges and protections.”); Labry v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 8 So. 3d 

1239, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Ganiko v. Ganiko, 826 So. 2d 391, 394-

95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). As neither Post Group’s amended complaint nor 

Goldin’s hearing testimony showed that any act beyond repayment of the 

promissory note was required to be performed in Florida, Cornerstone does 

not have sufficient minimum contacts with this state to support the 

assertion of personal jurisdiction over it. 

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and remanded with 

directions to grant Cornerstone’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to 

Post Group refiling its complaint in an appropriate forum. deMco Techs., 

Inc. v. C.S. Eng’d Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CIKLIN, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.