SAM W. GROOME, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD ABRAMS, PETER MARSH, AND JON OOSTEMEYER, APPELLEES
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.
Appellant Groome sued appellees for money owed under an oral contract for personal services and chose Palm Beach County as venue. Appellees moved for change of venue to Marion County without presenting evidence to support their motion. The court reversed the venue change, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving improper venue and failed to meet that burden.
The court held that appellees failed to meet their burden of clearly proving venue was improper. The allegations in the complaint alone did not constitute adequate grounds for venue change, and appellees presented no evidence at the hearing to sustain their burden. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the change of venue.
[1] A party contesting the venue selected by the plaintiff has the burden of clearly proving that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper.
[2] A motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue raises issues of fact that must be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that ven…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A party contesting the venue selected by the plaintiff has the burden of clearly proving that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper.”
Establishes the legal standard that the defendant bears the burden of proof in venue disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Groome sued appellees Abrams, Marsh, and Oostemeyer to recover money allegedly due under an oral contract for personal services. The complai…
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 Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of a non-final order changing venue from Palm Beach to Marion County.
Appellant sued appellees to recover money due him under an oral contract for personal services. The complaint alleges that the parties entered into the contract in Ocala, Florida (Marion County) and that appellant performed under the contract and received payments therefor in Palm Beach County, Florida, where appellant resides.
Appellees filed a motion attacking jurisdiction and an affidavit stating appel-lees are nonresidents of Florida. Appellees also filed a motion for change of venue “by reason of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Com plaint and any other facts which are otherwise brought to the Court’s attention.” At the hearing on the motion to change venue, appellees failed to adduce any proof to sustain their burden of demonstrating entitlement to a change of venue. Moreover, the allegations of the complaint did not constitute adequate grounds for a venue change. As this court held in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., v. National Bank of Melbourne and Trust Co., 238 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970):
The plaintiff is not required to plead facts in support of his selection of the venue for his suit. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. McDaniel, Fla. 1955, 78 So. 2d 100. If the defendant desires to contest the propriety of the venue selected by the plaintiff, he may do so by filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Rule 1.140(b)(3), F.R.C.P.; Inverness Coca-Bola Bottling Company v. McDaniel, supra. A motion by the defendant to dismiss on the ground of improper venue raises issues of fact which must be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that venue is improper. A party contesting the venue selected by the plaintiff has the burden of clearly proving that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper. Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, Fla.App. 1962, 136 So. 2d 377, 379; Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 170, 174.
The trial court has a broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue. However, the movant must furnish a sufficient factual basis for the exercise of that discretion. That was not done here and the order appealed from constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed.
REVERSED.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Tindall v. Smith, 601 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…erry, 548 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Smith, however, failed to furnish any proof in the trial court to sustain his burden of demonstrating entitlement to the transfer of venue to Pinellas County. See McMichael, 174 So. at 325; Groome v. State, 448 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Under section 47.122, the trial court may grant a change of venue to another court in which it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. Pursuant to section 47.011, a…
-
KINETIKS.COM, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…er venue until an evidentiary hearing was held to determine in which county the underlying promissory note was executed by the plaintiff); Department of Mgt. Servs. v. Fastrac Constr., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and Groome v. Abrams, 448 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). When venue is proper in more than one county, the plaintiff has the prerogative to select one of the proper venues. See Carlson-Southeast, 530 So. 2d at 1073. The party contesting venue has the burden of proving that the venue…
-
Domenico Loiaconi v. Gulf Stream Seafood, Inc., 830 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…Co., 366 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Moreover, while a trial court has broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue, the party challenging venue must provide a sufficient factual basis for the exercise of that discretion. Groome v. Abrams, 448 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Gulf Stream filed an unsworn motion with an attached document. It did not present any affidavits, testimony, or other sworn proof in support of its motion. Although Gulf Stream argues that the document submitted to the tria…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Merrill Lynch v. Nat'l Bank OF Melbourne & Tr. Co., 238 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Permenter v. Bank OF Green Cove Springs, 136 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Tribune Co. v. Approved Pers., Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)