MELVIN KATZ AND SONIA KATZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD PLUMER CO., D/B/A RICHARD PLUMER INTERIOR DESIGN, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to transfer venue.
Appellants were sued in Dade County for breach of contract for failure to pay for goods and services. Appellants moved to transfer venue to Palm Beach…
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 Place Of Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, residents of Palm Beach County, were sued in Dade County by appellee, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Dade County. The complaint alleged a breach of contract by appellants for their failure to pay an amount claimed to be due and payable for goods and services provided by appellee. Appellants moved to transfer the venue of the action to Palm Beach County, alleging that Palm Beach County, their residence, was the situs of the contract and the location of the property upon which the contracted interior furnishing services were performed. The trial court denied the motion to transfer venue and appellants brought this appeal.
We find that no reversible error has been demonstrated, and affirm the order appealed on the authority of the well-settled principle of law expressed in M.A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961):
[Wjhere a contract involves the payment of money and no place of payment is expressly agreed on, it may be implied that payment is to be made where the payee resides or has an established place of business, and where payment under the contract may be made. Where there is an express promise to pay, and no place of payment is stipulated, the debtor should seek the creditor unless otherwise provided or agreed.1
* * * * *
The rule is uniformly applicable in determining the place where the cause of action accrues when the action is based upon a failure or refusal to pay money due one of the parties to an executed contract.
Accord Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
. Citing: Croker v. Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146 (1934).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. Am. Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ent of money and no place of payment is expressly agreed on, it may be implied that payment is to be made where the payee resides or has an established place of business, and where payment under the contract may be made.” Katz v. Richard Plumer Co., 479 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (quoting M.A. Kite Co. v. A.C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)). Accord, Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). American alleged that payment was due in Dade County, Florida, and that P…
-
O'Brien Glass Co. v. Miami Wall Sys., Inc., 645 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…e Sorok-wasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), disapproved of on other grounds by, Payless Drug Stores, 615 So. 2d at 251; Katz v. Richard Plumer Co., 479 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, we must assume that O’Brien had a responsibility to send payment for the goods to Hialeah, Florida, where Miami Wall has its principal place of business. However, the fact that payment was due in Florida, is not a “sufficie…
-
Magic WOK Int'l, Inc. v. LI, 706 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…e debtor must seek the creditor and payment is to be made where the creditor resides. Schecter v. Fishman, 525 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Excel Insurance Company v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Katz v. Richard Plumer Company, 479 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The so-called exception to the rule above arises where there is no liquidated debt involved in the contract action. Where this occurs, the court must look to the gravamen of the allegations in the complaint to determine where th…
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 115 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1934)
- Jung H. Moon v. Ima-Park Place, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- M. A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)