Wendt v. Horowitz

822 So. 2d 1252 (2002)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wendt v. Horowitz

Florida Supreme Court
822 So. 2d 1252 (2002)


K.D. Trinh Investments, Inc. (Trinh), a Canadian corporation, sold short-term, high-interest loans to Florida residents through independent agents. Bernard Wendt (plaintiff), a Florida resident, was one of Trinh’s independent agents. Trinh retained Michigan attorney Marvin Horowitz (defendant) to draft loan notes and certificates that complied with Florida law. Horowitz told Trinh that the loan notes were not securities and that, therefore, the independent agents brokering the loans did not need to be licensed as securities brokers in Florida. Approximately one year after commencing loan sales, the Florida Department of Banking and Finance (DBS) commenced an investigation into Trinh’s loan sales due to suspected securities-law violations. Horowitz responded by letter to DBS agents and participated in the investigation on Trinh’s behalf. Subsequently, Florida residents who had purchased Trinh’s loan notes through Wendt brought a class-action lawsuit against Wendt, alleging that the loan notes were worthless and violated Florida securities laws. Wendt then filed a third-party complaint against Horowitz, alleging that Wendt had brokered the loan notes in detrimental reliance on Horowitz’s legal advice. Wendt claimed personal jurisdiction over Horowitz, a Michigan resident, under Florida’s long-arm statute, alleging that Horowitz had committed tortious acts in Florida by (1) negligently responding in writing to the DBS investigation; and (2) negligently drafting Florida loan documents that violated Florida securities laws. Horowitz moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that he did not commit a tortious act in Florida because he was never physically present in Florida. The trial court held that the long-arm statute afforded Florida personal jurisdiction over Horowitz and denied Horowitz’s motion. Horowitz appealed. The appellate court reversed the denial, holding that Florida’s long-arm statute did not apply because Horowitz’s tortious acts were committed in Michigan, not in Florida. Wendt appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Pariente, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership