LAKE WORTH PREMIUM FINANCE CO., INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
EMORY SINGLETARY, ETC. ET AL., 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's order transferring venue, finding that the defendants failed to adequately challenge the plaintiff's chosen venue. The court emphasized that venue objections must clearly negate the possibility that the cause of action accrued in the county where suit was filed.
No, the defendants' motions to transfer venue were insufficient. They failed to provide specific averments that clearly excluded the possibility of the causes of action accruing in Palm Beach County.
[1] A venue objection must contain specific averments that negate the plaintiff's right to sue in the chosen county, particularly when the accrual of the cause of action is d…
[2] A defendant challenging venue must clearly exclude the possibility that the county where suit was filed is a proper venue, and merely asserting accrual in a different cou…
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“We reverse the trial court’s order transferring venue, defendants/appellees having failed to show that none of the causes of action alleged in appellant’s complaint accrued in the county in which appellant filed its complaint.”
States the court's decision and the primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a complaint in Palm Beach County. The defendants filed motions to transfer venue, asserting they did not reside or conduct busines…
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 Accrual Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s order transferring venue, defendants/appellees having failed to show that none of the causes of action alleged in appellant’s complaint ac crued in the county in which appellant filed its complaint.
A venue objection should contain specific averments negativing the plaintiffs right to bring suit where plaintiff has brought it. If the place of accrual of the cause of action is at issue, the averments as to that should be clearcut enough to exclude the possibility that the county where the suit was brought is a proper venue. It is not enough merely to assert that the cause of action accrued in a different county. Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, 243 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Unless the defendant has sufficiently challenged the plaintiffs venue selection, the plaintiff need not allege or prove facts in support of his venue selection. Excel Insurance Company v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Here the motions for transfer of venue do not sufficiently challenge plaintiffs venue selection. The Swartsels averred that they live in Pasco County, and alleged that they had no contractual relationship with the plaintiff in Palm Beach County and do no business there. The Swartsels were silent about accrual of the cause of action. Emory Sin-gletary’s motion parallels the Swartsels’. Hampton Insurance Associates, Inc. made a conclusory statement that none of the causes of action accrued in Palm Beach County, but said nothing more on that question. Hampton said none of the defendants resides in Palm Beach County; no property involved in the suit is located in that county, none of the corporate defendants has an office for its customary business, and none of the foreign corporate defendants has an agent or other representative in that county. Hampton also said plaintiffs presence here is no basis for venue. This is not the stuff of which a motion pursuant to section 47.101 or section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1983) is made, as the corporate appellees have urged.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lindquist, 698 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…(Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“[Ojnee a defendant has challenged venue with an affidavit controverting a plaintiffs venue selection, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the selection of venue is proper.”); Lake Worth Premium Fin. Co. v. Singletary, 493 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“Unless the defendant has sufficiently challenged the plaintiffs venue selection, the plaintiff need not allege or prove facts in support of his venue selection”); see also § 47.111, Fla. Stat. (1995) (“The adverse party […
Authorities Cited
- Stolley & Assocs., Inc. v. Lawrence, 243 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Excel Ins. Co. v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)