ANA SILVIA GOEDMAKERS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY GOEDMAKERS, 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.
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying wife's motion to dismiss a dissolution action for improper venue where the husband's substantial business assets subject to division were located in Dade County and the witnesses with knowledge of those assets were also there.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue in a dissolution action when the county where the action was brought contains the marital property that will be the focus of trial and the relevant witnesses.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage action, venue is proper in the county where marital property subject to division is located and where witnesses with professional knowledge o…
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 intelligenceHusband filed a dissolution action in Dade County where he operated a thriving business in which wife held substantial ownership interest and where pr…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss a dissolution action as having been brought in an improper venue.
Appellee/husband commenced this action in Dade County. The evidence furnished by affidavits shows that appellant/wife lives in nearby Broward County where the parties resided before separating — over a year before this action was commenced. A thriving business operated by the husband, in which the wife holds a substantial ownership interest, is located in Dade County. The witnesses having professional knowledge of the nature and value of the business are also located in Dade County. Undoubtedly, the disclosure and division of the property located in Dade County will be the focus of the trial.
There is statutory support for the choice of venue and appellant/wife has not demonstrated that the court, for any other reason, should have ordered the case tried in Broward County. See § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1985); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court has broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue); cf. Thames v. Thames, 449 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (dissolution of marriage action was improperly brought in Pinellas County where evidence showed that the place where the parties last resided with the intent to remain married was Alachua County, and there was no property subject to the litigation located in Pinellas County).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 520 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1988)…BARKETT, Justice. We review Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 504 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), based upon conflict with Crawford v. Crawford, 415 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Carroll v. Carroll, 322 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), approved, 341 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1977). We have jurisdiction; Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Cons…
Authorities Cited
- Groome v. Abrams, 448 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Thames v. Thames, 449 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)