SHEFFIELD STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
POWELL BROTHERS, INC., 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.
Sheffield Steel Products sued Powell Brothers in Putnam County for breach of contract involving unpaid materials for a bridge construction project. The trial court transferred venue to Broward County based solely on unverified pleadings, and Sheffield appeals, arguing the defendant failed to establish sufficient grounds for the transfer.
The court reversed the venue transfer order, holding that the defendant failed to establish a sufficient record or basis for the change of venue. The critical fact determinative of proper venue is where payment should have been made under the contract, but neither the contract nor any verified pleadings established this. Without a hearing or verified evidence, the trial court improperly granted the transfer based solely on unverified allegations.
[1] A party seeking a change of venue must establish a sufficient record or basis for the relief requested.
[2] Venue for suits on contract or other obligations is proper in the county where payment should have been made.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The party seeking the change of venue must establish a sufficient record or basis for the relief requested.”
Establishes the burden on Powell Brothers to prove grounds for venue transfer with verified evidence, not mere unverified allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheffield Steel Products sold fabricated steel and materials to Powell Brothers under a written contract for bridge construction in Broward County. Sh…
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 Change Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The plaintiff, Sheffield Steel Products, Inc., appeals the trial court’s order changing venue from Putnam County to Broward County. We have jurisdiction.1 Because the defendant failed to establish a sufficient basis for the venue change, we reverse the lower court’s order. Sheffield sued the defendant, Powell Brothers, Inc., in Putnam County for failure to pay it for the fabricated steel and other materials it supplied to construct a bridge in Broward County, pursuant to a written contract. Sheffield’s steel fabricating plant is in Palatka, Florida, and some of the bridge elements were delivered F.O.B. Powell’s barge in Palatka, and some were F.O.B. the bridge site in Broward County. The contract did not expressly provide for the place Powell was to make its payments to Sheffield.
Powell filed an answer, counterclaim, and motion to transfer venue to Broward County. It alleged that payments under the contract were to be made in Broward; that all of the material witnesses are located in Broward; that Powell’s corporate offices are in Broward; and that Putnam would be an inconvenient forum for the defendant. Based on the unverified pleadings alone, the trial judge transferred venue because he “found” the contract was executed either in Dade County or Broward County, the bridge is in Broward County, and Broward is Powell’s corporate residence.
Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1979), provides:
Actions against domestic corporations shall be brought only in the county where such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. .
Upon a proper showing, the trial court should grant a change of venue if a lawsuit is filed in the wrong county,2 or if it would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses to try the case in a different county.3 Where Powell made payments under the contract to Sheffield or where it should have made them was the critical fact determinative of the venue question. Venue is proper for suits on contract or other obligations in the county where payment should have been made.4 However the contract and the unverified pleadings in this case do not address this issue. Only the defendant’s unverified motion claimed that payments were to be made in Broward, but no hearing was held to establish that fact. Nor was there any basis to support a change of venue on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
The party seeking the change of venue must establish a sufficient record or basis for the relief requested. Magee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Serv., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Sheffield was not required to plead or to prove that its selection of Putnam County was proper, in the absence of a sufficient challenge by the defendant. Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, 243 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). To paraphrase from the Stoliey case: We do not know where the cause of action accrued. We do know that defendant has failed to prove and sufficiently assert, with specific averments, that the plaintiff’s venue choice was improper. Having so failed, the defendant must bear the consequences of having the suit maintained in [Putnam] County.
243 So. 2d at 447.
The order appealed is REVERSED.
REVERSED.
CROSS, J., and BROWNLEE, Associate Judge., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A).
. § 47.091, Fla.Stat. (1979).
. § 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1979).
. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied General Contractors, Inc., 365 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Serv., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jones v. Hickman, 263 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Co., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
.Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc., 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Windsor v. Crescent A. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…nd where he was obligated to perform the agreement. Ap-pellee responds by citing the general rule that venue is proper for suits on contract in the county where payment should have been made, Sheffield Steel Products, Inc., v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), which would be Volusia County, where he resides. A cause of action for venue purposes accrues in the county where the contract is breached. Speedling, Inc. v. Krig, 378 So. 2d 57 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). If a plaintiff alleges breach…
-
Carter Realty Co. v. Roper Bros. Land Co., Inc., 461 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…scent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Excel Ins. Co. v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Windsor v. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), review denied 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980). Carter Realty cites St. Laurent v. Resort Marketing Assoc., Inc., 399 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and Knowles v. Imperial Lumber Company, Inc., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). The…
-
Indus. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assocs., Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ial court erred in denying its motion to abate for improper venue. We disagree. “Venue is proper for suits on contract or other obligations in the county where payment should have been made.” Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980); see also Windsor v. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla.2d DCA 1970); § 47.051, Fla.Stat. (1991). In the instant…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Magee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Fla. Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Servs., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc., 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Stolley & Assocs., Inc. v. Lawrence, 243 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied Gen. Contractors, Inc., 365 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hof's Printing & Rubber Stamp Shop, Inc. v. United States Leasing Corp., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- B & F OF Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Constr. Co., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Jones v. Hickman, 263 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)