JAMES R. JUTAGIR, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH MARLIN, HARRIS J. BUCHBINDER AND IRA M. ELEGANT, 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.
A complaint to rescind a land sale agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation with a counterclaim for specific performance is not a local action requiring venue where the land is located, because the fraudulent misrepresentations could have occurred anywhere and specific performance actions are in personam rather than in rem.
An action to rescind a land sale agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation with a counterclaim for specific performance is not a local action and need not be brought in the county where the land is located.
[1] An action to rescind a land sale agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation is not a local action merely because it involves real property, and venue is proper where…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jutagir sought to transfer venue of a complaint to rescind an agreement for conveyance of land based on fraudulent misrepresentation, to whi…
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 Real Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented by appellant’s motion to transfer venue is whether a complaint to rescind an agreement for the conveyance of land based on fraudulent misrepresentation, to which there is a counterclaim for specific performance, is a local action which must be heard where the land is located. The trial court correctly rejected appellant’s contention that any action in which the major issue involves real property is in the nature of an in rem proceeding, and is a local action.
The test for the proper action venue has generally been not whether the direct effect of the action would be in rem or in •personam, but whether the occurrence giving rise to the action could have happened only in one place or might have happened anywhere. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Thomasville, 100 Fla. 748, 751, 130 So. 7, 9 (1930). In this case, the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations could have been made in any county. Further, an action for specific performance of an agreement to sell land is purely an in personam action which need not be brought in the county where the land is located. Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36, 46, 162 So. 356, 360 (1935); McMullen v. McMullen, 122 So. 2d 626, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).
The order denying the motion to transfer is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…r unperformed promises and agreements, the fact that it will impact by operation of law on the title to appellee’s land does not in our judgment prevent application of the rule announced in Lakeland Ideal, supra. See, also Jutagir v. Marlin, et al., 453 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Therefore, the trial court properly denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.2 IV — MONETARY RELIEF Appellants next contend that the trial court erred in ordering that appellants would continue to be ob…
-
Hammond v. DSY Developers, LLC., 951 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…the circuit where the property is located. Id. In contrast, an action for specific performance on a contract for the sale of land is an in personam suit and may be maintained outside of the county where the property at stake lies. Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We find, therefore, that the trial court had jurisdiction to render an order on the specific performance claim. To the extent the trial court’s order operates as a mandate to transfer title, however, that portion of the order mu…
-
Spector v. OLD Town KEY W. Dev., Ltd., 567 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ocal action rule. Id.; Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (action for rescission or cancellation of contract for sale or exchange of land is transitory, not local action required to be brought where land located); Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (complaint to rescind agreement to sell land to which there was counterclaim for specific performance is in personam, not a local action); St. Laurent v. Resort Marketing Assocs., Inc., 399 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA [*1019] 1981) (s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. City of Thomasville, 100 Fla. 748 (Fla. 1930)
- McMULLEN v. McMULLEN, 122 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1935)