Mitchell Krassan and Susan Krassan v. Reich Family Limited Partnership, et al.

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MITCHELL KRASSAN and SUSAN KRASSAN,
Appellants,
v.
REICH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and MORTON REICH,
Appellees.
No. 4D2026-0622
[October 14, 2026]
Appeal 	of 	nonfinal 	order 	from 	the 	Circuit 	Court 	for 	the 	Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 502025CP004744XXXASB.
Robert J. Hauser of Sniffen & Harmon, P.A., West Palm Beach, for
appellants.
Eric A. Rice and Peter J. Forman of Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin
Forman Fleisher Miller P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees.
P ER CURIAM .
Mitchell Krassan and Susan Krassan appeal from a nonfinal order
denying their motion to dismiss the Partnership’s claims against them
based on a mandatory forum selection clause in the Reich Family Limited
Partnership Agreement. 	Because the Partnership’s claims are sufficiently
connected with the Partnership Agreement to fall within that clause, we
reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss as to those claims. 	We do not
reach the parties’ arguments concerning arbitration.
The Partnership is a Nevada limited partnership for which the general
partner is a Nevada corporation and the limited partners are three Florida
trusts. 	Mitchell served as the general partner’s president and as a co-
trustee of the trusts. 	The Partnership Agreement provides “that the
exclusive venue for any action brought in connection with this Agreement
shall be in Carson County, Nevada.”
The Partnership’s complaint alleges that Mitchell used his authority
over the Partnership to engage in self-dealing and make unauthorized

2
transfers and other transactions involving Partnership assets. 	Counts IV
through XIII are asserted by the Partnership against Mitchell, Susan, or
both. Count V specifically alleges that Mitchell violated section 11.2 of the
Partnership 	Agreement 	through 	loans 	and 	advances 	made 	on
impermissible terms.
Mitchell and Susan moved to dismiss Counts IV through XIV based on
improper venue pursuant to the mandatory forum selection clause. 	The
trial court denied the motion, concluding that, other than Count V, the
claims 	raised 	in 	the 	remaining 	counts 	existed 	independently 	of 	the
Partnership Agreement.
We review de novo an order denying a motion to dismiss based on a
forum selection clause. Milstein v. Nicklaus, 412 So. 3d 802, 805 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2025). 	“Even in contracts containing broad forum selection clauses,
whether 	a 	particular 	claim 	is 	subject 	to 	a 	forum 	selection 	clause
necessarily depends on the existence of some nexus between the dispute
and the contract containing the forum selection clause.” 	Id. at 807
(citation modified).
The Partnership’s claims here satisfy that standard. Count V expressly
alleges 	a 	violation 	of 	the 	Partnership 	Agreement. 	The 	Partnership’s
remaining claims against Mitchell and Susan incorporate the same general
allegations and concern the same or related transfers, loans, investments,
and other transactions involving Partnership assets. 	Resolution of those
claims implicates Mitchell’s authority to act through the general partner
and the rights and obligations established by the Partnership Agreement.
See also Milstein, 412 So. 3d at 807 (“For a tort claim to be considered
‘arising out of or relating to’ an agreement, it must, at a minimum, raise
some issue the resolution of which requires reference to or construction of
some portion of the contract itself.” (citation modified)).
We 	have 	considered 	and 	rejected 	the 	appellees’ 	other 	arguments
concerning enforcement of the forum selection clause.
Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent it denies dismissal of
Counts IV through XIII and the Partnership’s request for attorney’s fees in
Count XIV. 	We remand for dismissal of those claims without prejudice to
being 	brought 	in 	the 	contractually-selected 	Nevada 	forum. 	See
Leatherwood v. Cardservice Int’l, Inc., 929 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006). 	Because those claims must be dismissed pursuant to the forum
selection clause, we do not reach the 	parties’ arguments 	concerning
nonbinding arbitration.
Reversed and remanded.

3
GROSS, MAY and LOTT , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.