INTER-MEDIC HEALTH CENTERS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD L. MURPHY, ETC., 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.
This case concerns venue in a medical malpractice action where defendants reside in different counties. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of a venue transfer, holding that venue was improper in Duval County.
No, venue was not proper in Duval County. When a corporate defendant resides in the same county as an individual defendant, venue is proper only in the county of their joint residence.
[1] Venue for an action against multiple defendants residing in different counties may be brought in any county where any defendant resides, but this provision is inapplicabl…
[2] In circumstances where a corporate defendant and an individual defendant reside in the same county, venue is proper only in the county of their joint residence.
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“Section 47.021, Florida Statutes, provides that, regarding multiple defendants residing in different counties, venue “may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.””
Establishes the general rule for venue with multiple defendants in different counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA medical malpractice action was filed in Duval County against a physician and a hospital. The cause of action accrued in St. Johns County, where the …
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 Corporate Residence For Venue Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellants seek interlocutory review of an order denying various motions relating to venue; we conclude that the court erroneously refused to transfer venue, and reverse the order appealed. This case involves a medical malpractice action brought against the patient’s physician (Dr. Shelley) and the treating hospital in its corporate entity (Inter-Medic). The cause of action accrued in St. Johns County, where the treating hospital is located and where Dr. Shelley resides; however, this action was brought in Duval County, where Inter-Medic maintains another hospital facility.
Section 47.021, Florida Statutes, provides that, regarding multiple defendants residing in different counties, venue “may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.” However, this provision is inapplicable where a corporate defendant resides in the same county as an individual defendant, even though the corporate defendant may have other residences; in such circumstances venue is proper, pursuant to § 47.011, Florida Statutes, only in the county of “joint residence.” See Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1957); Maloney v. Fleishaker, 238 So. 2d 496 (Fla.2d DCA 1970).
While a venue objection is subject to waiver, see Inverness Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1955), Inter-Medic’s failure to make an adequate objection does not preclude the assertion of a venue objection by Dr. Shelley. See Maloney v. Fleishaker, supra. Dr. Shelley did file a timely objection, by way of motion to dismiss and transfer venue, citing § 47.011 and alleging St. Johns County as his only residence and the appropriate place of venue. Although Dr. Shelley did not specifically allege that Inter-Medic also resides in St. Johns County, this fact was alleged in both the complaint and Inter-Medic’s answer. We conclude that in these circumstances Dr. Shelley’s venue objection was sufficiently pleaded.
The order appealed is accordingly reversed and remanded with directions to transfer venue.
SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sinclair Fund v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…nty as an individual defendant, venue is only proper in that county of joint residence. Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1957); Walden Leasing, Inc. v. Modicamore, 559 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Plaintiff persuaded the trial court that venue in a contract action for payment of money is in the county where payment is to be made, citing Estes v. Pioneer Bonding & Insurance Agency, Inc., 567 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…
-
The Levy Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Bowdoin, 607 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…le, when a corporate defendant resides in the same county as an individual defendant, even though the corporate defendant resides in other counties, too, venue is proper only in the county of joint residence. Inter-Medic Health Ctrs. Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellees represent that PESC and FBMC transact business in ev [*482] ery county in Florida. If they also reside in every county, including Levy County, where the individual defendant School Board resides, then venue would…
-
Berdos v. Dowling, 544 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…in Broward County. They only claim in their briefs that Pizza Hut has agents in Broward, Alachua and Bradford. Defendant Pizza Hut never alleges the location of its resident agent. The defendants rely on Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which held: Section 47.021, Florida Statutes, provides that, regarding multiple defendants residing in different counties, venue “may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.” However, this provision is inapplic…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Miller v. Miller, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957)
- Maloney v. Fleishaker, 238 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)