IRWIN J. WEINER AND DRUCK, HICKS AND WEINER, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANTS,
v.
PRUDENTIAL MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Attorneys practicing in Marion County were sued in Dade County for breach of contract and legal malpractice relating to a foreclosure action that should have been filed in Alachua County. The court reversed the denial of the defendants' motion to transfer, holding that venue was improper in Dade County and that the case should be transferred to either Marion or Alachua County.
Venue was improper in Dade County. Since none of the defendants resided in Dade County, the action could be maintained there only if a cause of action accrued in that county. The breach of contract and legal malpractice causes of action accrued in Alachua County, where the legal services were to be performed and where the defendants' negligence had its impact and caused damage to plaintiff's property.
[1] A cause of action for breach of contract for legal services accrues where the services were to be performed.
[2] A cause of action for legal malpractice accrues where the alleged negligence had its impact and caused damage.
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“Since none of the defendants are residents of Dade County, the action may be maintained here only if one or more of the causes of action sued upon accrued in this county.”
Establishes the legal standard for venue when defendant is not a county resident
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeiner and Druck, Hicks and Weiner (attorneys practicing in Marion County) were hired to file a foreclosure action and protect a client's interest in …
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 Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellants are attorneys who reside and practice in Marion County. They were sued in Dade County by the appellee, which does business here, for breach of contract and legal malpractice in failing, as they had promised, to file a foreclosure action and otherwise to protect the plaintiffs interest in real estate located in Alachua County. The defendants appeal from the denial of their motion to transfer the case on the ground that the Dade County venue was improper. We reverse.
Since none of the defendants are residents of Dade County, the action may be maintained here only if one or more of the causes of action sued upon accrued in this county. See Tucker v. Fianson, 484 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1989) (action may be brought in county “where defendant resides [or] where the cause of action accrued ... ”). That is not the case. The breach of contract action based upon the failure of the attorneys to provide legal services as they had agreed arose where those services were to be performed;1 that is, where the foreclosure action was to have been filed in Alachua County. See Ivey v. Padgett, 502 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (negligence action against Putman County lawyers accrued in Volusia County where medical malpractice defendants resided and should have been sued). The legal malpractice claim similarly accrued in Alachua County, where the defendants’ alleged negligence had its impact and caused damage to the plaintiff’s property located there. Tucker, 484 So. 2d at 1370.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed with directions to transfer the action, at the plaintiff’s option, either to Marion or Alachua County.
. The appellee attempts to construct a claim based on the alleged breach of a contract to correctly inform it of the progress of the Alachua County case, which it claims arose where it received false communications to that effect in Dade County. This breach of contract is, however, entirely chimerical and may be entirely disregarded for venue purposes. See Davidson v. Green, 367 So. 2d 1032, 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). No damages could have even been claimed for breach of this undertaking; instead the entire gravamen of the action was not that the defendants had not informed the plaintiff of what they were doing, but that they had not, in fact, done what they were required by contract and professional due care to do.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wincor v. Cedars Healthcare Grp., Ltd., 695 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…claim accrued where plaintiff suffered injury by loss of clients); see also Walt Disney World Co. v. Leff, 323 So. 2d 602, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (personal injury action accrued where injury occurred); Weiner v. Prudential Mortgage Investors, Inc., 557 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (legal malpractice claim accrued where attorney’s alleged negligence caused damage to plaintiff’s property); Tucker, 484 So. 2d at 1371 (legal malpractice action accrued where asserted negligence impacted upon plaintiffs economic…
-
Hacienda Villas, Inc. v. MIA Consulting Grp., Inc., 47 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…is a breach that accrues in the county where the services were to be performed.” Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice § 2:4; Kumar v. Embassy Kosher Tours, Inc., 696 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Weiner v. Prudential Mortgage Investors, Inc., 557 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We reverse the order now before us and remand with directions to dismiss the action or transfer it to the circuit court in Hillsborough County. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Williams v. Goldsmith, 619 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…speculative as no clients have filed any malpractice claims yet. In any event, venue in a malpractice action lies where the economic damage was done to the client. Tucker, 484 So. 2d at 1371; see also, Weiner v. Prudential Mortgage Investors, Inc., 557 So. 2d 912 (Fla.3d DCA 1990) (legal malpractice claim accrued where attorney’s alleged negligence had its impact and caused damage to plaintiff’s property). Finally, the last event necessary to make appellant liable for misrepresentation, fraud and civil thef…
Authorities Cited
- Tucker v. Chantal Fianson, 484 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Kemp v. State, 502 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Ivey v. Padgett, 502 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Davidson v. Hyman Green, 367 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)