KAREN P. CAMERON A/K/A KAREN PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
SMITH NEW COURT, INC., A FOREIGN 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.
Karen Cameron appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to transfer for improper venue in a promissory note case. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine where the note was executed before ruling on the venue motion.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that while the trial court did not necessarily abuse its discretion in denying the venue transfer motion, it erred by ruling on the motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine conclusively in which county Michael executed the promissory note.
[1] A trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the proper venue when the location of execution of a promissory note is disputed.
[2] A motion to transfer for improper venue should be reconsidered after both parties submit additional proof on the venue issue.
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“the trial court should have deferred ruling on Karen's motion to transfer for improper venue until an evidentiary hearing was held to determine in which county the underlying promissory note was executed by Michael”
Establishes the core holding that venue motions require evidentiary hearings when venue is disputed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith New Court filed suit against Karen P. Cameron and her former husband Michael C. Cameron on a promissory note executed February 12, 1988. The not…
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 Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Karen P. Cameron, appeals from an order denying her motion to dismiss and from an agreed corrected order denying her motion to transfer for improper venue. We reverse and remand for a hearing.
Smith New Court, Inc. filed suit against Karen P. Cameron and her former husband, Michael C. Cameron, on a promissory note executed on February 12, 1988. The upper right hand corner of the note contains the words “Miami, Florida.” Next to the signature lines at the bottom of the note is the Camerons’, the makers’, address, 301 Polmer Park, Palm Beach, Florida.
Smith New Court alleges that Michael executed the promissory note in Dade County. However, Karen alleges that she and her husband signed the note in Palm Beach County. As the note indicates, the Camerons resided in Palm Beach, Florida at that time. Karen filed a motion to transfer for improper venue. It is undisputed that Karen resided in either Palm Beach or Hillsborough County at all times material to the underlying action. It is also undisputed that Karen resided in Hills-borough County and that Michael resided in Orange County when this action was filed and served.
The trial court denied the motion to transfer for improper venue. On May 12, 1992, the trial court entered an order erroneously titled order denying motion to dismiss. On May 24, 1992, the trial court entered a corrected order denying her motion to transfer for improper venue. Karen appealed.
We are not prepared to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Karen’s motion to transfer for improper venue. See Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). However, the trial court should have deferred ruling on Karen’s motion to transfer for improper venue until an evidentiary hearing was held to determine in which county the underlying promissory note was executed by Michael. See Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Industries, Inc., 896 F. 2d 1352, 1355 (11th Cir.1990) (abuse of discretion for trial court not to permit additional discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine proper venue); Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (motion to dismiss for improper venue should be reconsidered after both parties submit additional proof on venue issue).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing prior to trial to determine conclusively in which county Michael executed the promissory note.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KINETIKS.COM, Inc. v. Sweeney, 789 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…he motion to dismiss, see Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the trial court did err in denying appellants the ability to file defenses to the new venue allegations. See Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(trial court should have deferred ruling on defendant’s motion to transfer for improper venue until an evidentiary hearing was held to determine in which county the underlying promissory note was executed by the plaintiff); De…
-
Marci Smith v. Morgan Carratt & O'Conner, P.A., 710 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…allegations— which, if true, would have established that, venue was proper in Monroe County and not in Broward County — we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on that issue. See Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
McFADDEN v. Wolfman & Greenfield, P.A., 616 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…tertain reversal. The hearing on the motion to transfer for improper venue was not reported and we are unable to ascertain what transpired there. A hearing on venue is (or can be) an eviden-tiary hearing. See, e.g., Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Without a record of that proceeding to review, we are unable to conclude the lower court erred in its implicit conclusion that none of appel [*501] lant’s causes of action accr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tribune Co. v. Approved Pers., Inc., 115 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., Inc., 896 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Carlson-Southeast Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)