SIDNEY HONEA, APPELLANT,
v.
WALKER CHEMICAL & EXTERMINATING CO., 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.
An employee challenged a contractual venue provision in an employment agreement that required any disputes to be brought in Orange County Circuit Court rather than in his home county of Volusia. The court affirmed that parties may contractually agree on venue for contract disputes, and the provision was enforceable.
Contractual venue provisions in employment agreements are enforceable under Florida law. The trial court properly denied the employee's motion to transfer venue, and the venue provision is valid and binding.
[1] Parties to a contract may agree on venue for actions to enforce the contract.
[2] A contractual provision specifying venue for suits arising under the agreement is enforceable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It has long been the law of Florida that parties to a contract may agree on venue for actions to enforce the contract.”
Establishes the foundational principle that contractual venue agreements are valid under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSidney Honea was employed under an agreement containing an explicit provision requiring venue for any suit under the agreement to be in the Circuit Co…
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 Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The employment agreement sued on here contained a provision that venue for any suit brought thereunder would be in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida.1
In the action for breach of the employment agreement filed by the employer in Orange County, the employee moved to abate and transfer the cause to Volusia County, where he resides and where he alleges the cause of action accrued, contending that the contractual provision was unenforceable. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal follows.2 We affirm.
It has long been the law of Florida that parties to a contract may agree on venue for actions to enforce the contract. Producers Supply, Inc. v. Harz, 149 Fla. 594, 6 So. 2d 375 (1942); Felkel v. Abernethy, 112 Fla. 358, 150 So. 631 (1933). See also, Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. Brown, 270 So. 2d 751 (Fla.2d DCA 1972).
Appellant’s reliance on Gates v. Stucco Corp., 112 So. 2d 36 (Fla.3d DCA 1959) and on Huntley v. Alejandre, 139 So. 2d 911 (Fla.3d DCA 1962) is misplaced, because in Gates, there was no contractual provision to support the claim of venue, only an alleged oral agreement which was in violation of the rule requiring stipulations to be in writing, with an attorney who did not appear in the suit, and in Huntley, the contract provided that suits thereon would be brought only in the courts of Havana, Cuba, which was an ineffectual attempt to oust the jurisdiction of all courts except the courts of Cuba. Jurisdiction is not involved here, only venue, which is a privilege that can be waived. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1955); Fixel v. Clevenger, 285 So. 2d 687 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
The order appealed from is
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . “VENUE: The Employer and Employee hereby mutually agree that the venue for any suit seeking any relief under the terms of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, shall be the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida; the Employee hereby waiving his right to be sued in any other Court in the County where the Employee may reside, if other than Orange County, Florida.”
. Rule 9.130(3)(A), Fla.R.App.P.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ira Shay & Shalev Corp. v. First Fed. OF Miami, Inc., 429 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…& Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 302 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1974); McTeague v. Treibits, 388 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Courts will allow the parties to waive certain privileges, Honea v. Walker Chemical & Exterminating Co., Inc., 393 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (venue), as long as such waiver is not against public policy, Huntley v. Alejandre, 139 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (parties attempted to waive jurisdiction of all courts except those in Havana, Cuba). In the case sub judice, i…
-
Bus. Aide Computers, Inc. v. Cent. Fla. Mack Trucks, Inc., 432 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…the alleged fraud took place, Orange County. It is well settled that parties to a contract may include a choice of venue provision therein in the event a suit regarding the contract develops. See, e.g., Honea v. Walker Chemical & Exterminating Co., 393 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. Brown, 270 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Deeb, Inc. v. Board of Public Instruction, 196 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The question presented by this appeal is whether the venue provision here is inappl…
-
Se. Off. Supply & Furniture Co., Inc. v. Barley, 427 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…clear that parties to an agreement may provide therein where suit is to be brought to enforce it if such becomes necessary. Producers Supply, Inc. v. Harz, 149 Fla. 594, 6 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1942); Hone a v. Walker Chemical & Exterminating Co., Inc., 393 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Despite the foregoing agreement, when venue in Leon County was attacked by Southeastern, Barley argued that the court should ignore the venue provision in the contract he had affirmed by his complaint, based upon the statutory g…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lottie McDANIEL, 78 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1955)
- Producers Supply, Inc. v. Harz, 6 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1942)
- Fixel v. Clevenger, 285 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Huntley v. Alejandre, 139 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Gates v. Stucco Corp., 112 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Felkel v. Inez Abernethy, 112 Fla. 358 (Fla. 1933)
- Carroll v. James J. Andrews, Inc., 270 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)