DAVID L. KAHN AND MADIA S. KAHN, APPELLANTS,
v.
GILL HOTELS CO. D/B/A SHERATON YANKEE TRADER RESORT, 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 a defendant seeking a change of venue must demonstrate that venue is improper in the chosen county or provide a good reason for the change under Chapter 47.
Appellants alleged tortious conduct effects occurred in Palm Beach County. Appellee sought a change of venue to Broward County but failed to provide e…
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 Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1375] PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal the trial court’s non-final order granting a change of venue from Palm Beach County to Broward County, and argue that appellee has failed to provide any basis for the requested change of venue. We agree with appellants and reverse.
This court held in Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA1975), that a defendant seeking a change of venue must show either that venue will not lie in the place chosen by the plaintiff, or that venue should be changed for some good reason under one or more of the sections of Chapter 47, Florida Statutes.
In the instant case, appellants alleged that the effects of the tortious conduct occurred in Palm Beach County. Since appellee failed to show by evidence or affidavit that venue will not lie in Palm Beach County, the burden did not shift to appellants to show that it would. See, e.g., Miller v. Southland Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla. 4th DCA1987).
The trial court may grant a change in venue only if one or more of the sections of Chapter 47 applies. Appellee’s motion to transfer venue did not raise any applicable sections of Chapter 47, nor did the trial court make any findings pursuant to any of them. See, e.g., Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA1980). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to reinstate the cause in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coleman P. Houchins, Jr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Fla. Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Servs., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Miller v. Southland Ins. Co., Inc., 513 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)