BARRY COOK FORD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 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 erred in transferring venue when the plaintiff selected a statutorily permissible venue and the defendant did not demonstrate impropriety.
[1] An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order transferring venue.
[2] The primary purpose of venue statutes is to ensure litigation occurs in the forum causing the least inconvenience and expense to the defending parties.
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 intelligencePlaintiff Cook Ford, Inc. filed suit in Leon County against Ford Motor Company (FMC), whose principal place of business was Polk County. Cook chose Le…
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 Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff/appellant Barry Cook Ford, Inc. (Cook) challenges a non-final order transferring venue pursuant to section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1989), from Leon County to Polk County. Although located in Polk County, Cook chose to file its suit, arising from a franchise termination, against Ford Motor Company (FMC) in Leon County where FMC has another franchisee, Tallahassee Motors, Inc. (TMI). We reverse.
As the appellate court with jurisdiction over the transferring court, this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the order. Davis v. Florida Power Corp., 486 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). While the primary purpose of venue statutes is to require litigation to be instituted in the forum which will cause the least amount of inconvenience and expense to those parties required to answer and defend the action, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to select the venue and as long as that selection is one of the alternatives provided by statute, the plaintiff’s selection will not be disturbed. The plaintiff’s decision regarding venue is presumptively correct, and the party challenging venue has the burden to demonstrate any impropriety in the plaintiff’s choice. See Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Williams v. Union Nat. Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The trial court inappropriately transferred venue in this case. Under section 47.051, FMC is a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, which has an “agent or other representative” doing busi ness in Leon County. Since Cook chose one of the statutory alternatives, its selection should not have been disturbed by the trial court unless FMC demonstrated an impropriety in its choice. The record indicates that FMC did not meet this burden and that the trial court’s ruling was limited to the scope of section 47.051. See Berdos v. Dowling, 544 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barr v. The Fla. Bd. OF Regents, 644 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…iffs selection will not be disturbed. The plaintiffs decision regarding venue is presumptively correct, and the party challenging venue has the burden to demonstrate any impropriety in the plaintiffs choice. Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 571 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accord Williams v. Union National Insurance Co., 528 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Schecter v. Fishman, 525 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In Bar…
-
Graham v. Graham, 648 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…t a trial in the county in which the action was filed would work a substantial inconvenience to it, and to witnesses. Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); See also Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 571 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lesia Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…or any reason and that selection will not be disturbed absent evidence that the chosen venue is either not proper in the place selected or substantially inconvenient to the witnesses or parties. Id.; see also Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 571 So. 2d 61, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“While the primary purpose of venue statutes is to require litigation to be instituted in the forum which will cause the least amount of inconvenience and expense to those parties required to answer and defend the action, it…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Anneliese Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Int'l Oceanographic Found. v. Stobs Bros. Constr. Co., 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., Inc. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Queen Williams v. Union Nat'l Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Berdos v. Dowling, 544 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Davis v. Fla. Power Corp., 486 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Parham v. Price, 486 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)