Associate Attorney
In Vyas v. American Van Lines, Inc., the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified an important distinction that is often blurred in practice: while a mandatory forum-selection clause may control venue, it does not, by itself, establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
The case arose from a moving contract between a New York resident and a Florida-based moving company. The defendant initially signed an agreement containing a Broward County forum-selection clause, but a later revised contract—signed by his agent and reflecting a higher price—did not include those same terms. After a payment dispute, the plaintiff sued in Florida and relied primarily on the forum-selection clause to establish jurisdiction. The defendant moved to dismiss, submitting an affidavit showing he had no meaningful contacts with Florida. The trial court denied the motion, but the Fourth DCA reversed.
On appeal, the court emphasized that although mandatory forum-selection clauses are generally valid and enforceable, and will typically control venue unless shown to be unjust or unreasonable, they do not eliminate the need for a proper jurisdictional analysis. Florida courts must still apply the two-step inquiry: (1) whether the long-arm statute is satisfied, and (2) whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.
The plaintiff attempted to rely on section 48.193(1)(a)9, which allows jurisdiction where a contract complies with section 685.102. But the court walked through the statute’s requirements—namely that the contract must include a Florida choice-of-law provision, a submission to Florida jurisdiction, involve at least $250,000 in consideration, not violate constitutional principles, bear a reasonable relation to Florida (or involve a Florida party), and not involve out-of-state labor/services or personal/household transactions—and found they were not met. Most notably, the contract at issue was worth only about $7,400, far below the statutory threshold. Without satisfying section 685.102 or establishing minimum contacts, jurisdiction could not be sustained.
Practice pointers
- Do not conflate venue with jurisdiction. A forum-selection clause may dictate where a case is filed, but it does not automatically establish the court’s power over the defendant.
- Personal jurisdiction still requires a two-step analysis: the long-arm statute and constitutional due process.
- Section 685.102 provides a narrow pathway to jurisdiction, but its requirements must be strictly satisfied—including the $250,000 threshold.
- Always evaluate minimum contacts independently, especially when dealing with non-resident defendants.
Takeaway: A forum-selection clause is a powerful tool—but it is not a shortcut to personal jurisdiction. Without a valid statutory basis or sufficient minimum contacts, Florida courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident, no matter what the contract says.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.