AMERICAN THERMOPLASTIC EXTRUSION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
TACKETT PLASTICS, INC., 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.
American Thermoplastic Extrusion Company appealed a trial court order transferring venue of an account-stated action from Dade County to Polk County. The appellate court reversed, holding that venue was properly laid in Dade County where the creditor resides and where the cause of action accrued when the defendant refused to pay the debt.
Venue was properly laid in Dade County because the plaintiff/creditor resides there, and the cause of action accrued when the defendant refused to pay the debt in Dade County. The fact that contract negotiations and delivery occurred in Polk County, or that the defendant maintained an office there, does not change the proper venue. The plaintiff has the right to choose venue under Florida law.
[1] Venue for an account-stated action is proper in the county where the cause of action accrued, which is typically where the debt was to be paid.
[2] In the absence of an agreement specifying the place of payment, a debt is presumptively payable in the county where the creditor resides.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the venue of the instant action was properly laid in Dade County because it is here that "the cause of action accrued" under Section 47.-051, Florida Statutes (1987), when the defendant Tackett Plastics, Inc. allegedly refused to pay the debt in Dade County.”
Establishes the core holding that venue is determined by where the cause of action accrued, which is where the debt was to be paid and payment was refused.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Thermoplastic Extrusion Co., located in Hialeah, Florida (Dade County), brought an account-stated action against Tackett Plastics, Inc. The c…
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 Venue Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order transferring the venue of an account-stated action from Dade County to Polk County. Because (a) the plaintiff American Thermoplastic Extrusion Co. is, without dispute, located in Hialeah, Florida, which is located in Dade County, and (b) there is no showing in this record where the alleged debt was to be paid, it is presumed that the debt was to be paid in Dade County, where the plaintiff/creditor resides. It therefore follows that the venue of the instant action was properly laid in Dade County because it is here that “the cause of action accrued” under Section 47.-051, Florida Statutes (1987), when the defendant Tackett Plastics, Inc. allegedly refused to pay the debt in Dade County. See Croker v. Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 747, 156 So. 146, 151 (1934); Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950, 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First Int’l Realty Inv. Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Servs., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730, 731-32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The fact that the contract involved in this case was negotiated in Polk County, and that delivery of the items sold was accomplished in Polk County cannot change this result. This is so because the debt incurred through this contract was presumptively payable in Dade County, and no action accrued thereon until the defendant refused to pay the said debt in Dade County. Obviously, the action did not accrue during the contract negotiations between the parties; and, in the absence of an agreement to that effect, the debt was not payable in Polk County, where the goods were delivered.
Moreover, the fact that the defendant has an office in Polk County for the transaction of its customary business and could, therefore, have been sued in Polk County under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1987), cannot change this result either. The plaintiff has the choice of selecting venue under the above statute, see Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., 362 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1979); cf. Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708, 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); see also M.A. Kite Co. v. A.C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), and the plaintiff herein properly selected Dade County. There was no legal basis for upsetting this venue choice and transferring the cause to Polk County.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ue. In the absence of a showing by the defendant to overcome the presumption of correctness as to the plaintiffs venue choice, there “is no legal basis for upsetting this venue choice.” American Thermoplastic Extrusion Co. v. Tackett Plastics, Inc., 527 So. 2d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Sage [*836] v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Hartford, 239 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (holding plaintiff has right to maintain action in proper forum “in the absence of a motion to transfer and a proper showing under Secti…
-
Morales Sand & Soil, L.L.C. v. Kendall Props. & Invs., 923 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e vendor ships a known quantity of goods to a purchaser who then fails to pay for them. In that case, the breach is the failure to pay a known sum, and the Croker v. Powell rule applies. See Am. Thermoplastic Extrusion Co. v. Tackett Plastics, Inc., 527 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). It is more like a failure to make an accounting, which cause is not governed by the Croker rule. See, e.g., Am. Int’l Food Corp. v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to tr…
-
Elkins Constructors, Inc. v. Spancrete, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See American Thermoplastic Extrusion Company v. Tackett Plastics, Inc., 527 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
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)
- Coleman P. Houchins, Jr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Fla. Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Servs., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc., 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- First Int'l Realty Inv. Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)