KENNETH E. PROCTOR AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF OKEECHOBEE, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that venue was improper in Okeechobee County for a tort action, as the cause of action accrued in Marion County where the alleged wrong occurred.
Appellee sued appellant in Okeechobee County, where appellee has its principal place of business. The alleged wrongful injunction, which forms the bas…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order denying motion for change of venue. It is a proper appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A).
Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1977)1 is the statute governing venue; that is, in which county one properly files a lawsuit. In this action the plaintiff (appellee) has its principal place of business, thus' resides, in Okeechobee County. The defendant Proctor is a resident of Marion County and the appellant INA is in the suit as a surety for Proctor on a bond issued in Marion County.
This is a lawsuit alleging a tort so there is no property involved. The suit is generally about an alleged wrongful injunction obtained by appellant against the Sheriff of Marion County preventing an execution sale which sale was to be held in order to satisfy a debt owed the appellee by a third party. Because the debt was reduced to judgment in Okeechobee County and post judgment orders were entered in that county the appellee maintains the venue properly lies in that county and appellee maintains that position even though the alleged wrong he complains of occurred in Marion County. We cannot agree with appellee and must reverse the order and remand to the trial court to require transfer of this cause to Marion County, in the Fifth Judicial Circuit for any further proceedings. Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Coggin Pontiac, Inc. v. Putnam Auto Sales, Inc., 278 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur. . Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1977):
Where actions may be begun. Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City OF Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001)…nd proves some other cause of action such as malicious prosecution. See Parker, 544 So. 2d at 1021. . The City points out that only one case aside from the present case has classified a wrongful injunction as a tort. See Proctor v. Commercial Bank, 373 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). However, that case involved the proper venue of the cause of action and there was no analysis of the nature of the cause of action. In fact, the cause of action was a separate proceeding and the Fourth District stated: “Thi…
-
Straske v. McGILLICUDDY, 388 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…n. Assuming that the amended complaint states a cause of action, it is one sounding in tort. A cause of action for tort arises at the place where the act creating the right to bring the action occurred. See Proctor v. Commercial Bank of Okeechobee, 373 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hammond v. Potito, 197 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Here, the cause of action arose in Hillsborough County because all of the activity surrounding the tort occurred in that county. It was the site of the bankruptcy court, and t…
-
Eldridge E. Bravo, Jr. v. Rodriguez, 671 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…y for allegedly fraudulent conduct on the part of Bravo and Knuts-son. The venue inquiry thus relates to this new cause, not the prior one. See Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., 896 F. 2d 1352 (11th Cir.1990); Proctor v. Commercial Bank of Okeechobee, 373 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). As in Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we are not prepared at this time to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue. However, we reverse the ord…
Authorities Cited
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Coggin Pontiac, Inc. v. Putnam Auto Sales, Inc., 278 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)