ROSS HANCOCK, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK CRIPPEN AND DOROTHY CRIPPEN, HIS WIFE, 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.
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate improper venue because his affidavit did not negate the statutory requirement that the co-defendants have an office for business in Dade County.
Hancock, a resident of Volusia County, was sued in Dade County along with two Florida corporations. Hancock moved to dismiss for improper venue, argui…
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.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Hancock is a resident of Volusia County who was joined as a co-defendant with two Florida corporations in a Dade County lawsuit arising out of causes of action which accrued in Broward County. He appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss for improper venue. We affirm because the appellant did not demonstrate that the co-defendants were not “residents” of Dade County within the meaning of Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1983).1 While Hancock’s affidavit stated that each corporation had its “principal place of business” and did business “primarily” in Broward County, it did not negate the significantly different statutory requirement of the existence in Dade County of “an office for the transaction of its customary business.” [e.s.] See Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla.lst DCA 1959). Hence, as in Birdsall Shipping, S.A v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), the appellant failed to carry his burden of establishing that venue was improper under Section 47.021, Florida Statutes (1983):
Actions against defendants residing in different counties. — Actions against two or more defendants residing in different counties may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.
Affirmed.
. Actions against corporations. — 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. Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kustom US, Inc. v. Herry, LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…ly prove venue does not arise where a defendant has not successfully carried its initial burden to controvert venue in affidavits and at a hearing. See Polackwich v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 576 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hancock v. Crippen, 457 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984) (affirming a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue because the defendant’s supporting affidavit did not sufficiently contest the claim that venue was proper under the statute, thus, the defendant nev…
Authorities Cited
- Tribune Co. v. Approved Pers., Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo, 390 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)