THE SINCLAIR FUND, INC. JEFFREY L. KIRSCH, AND KRYSTYNA OCHOCINSKI, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM H. BURTON, JR., AND MARK L. SMITH, APPELLEES
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.
Venue is proper in the county where both individual and corporate defendants reside, even if payment was to be made elsewhere.
Plaintiff sued defendants in Martin County for failure to repay a loan, alleging payments were to be made there. Defendants, a resident of Broward Cou…
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.
KLEIN, Judge.
Defendants appeal an order denying a motion to change venue from Martin County to Broward County. We reverse.
Plaintiff sued defendants in Martin County, alleging that the defendants had failed to repay a loan he made to them. He further alleged that the payments were to be made in Martin County. Defendants moved to transfer venue to Broward County because one of the individual defendants is a resident of Broward County and defendant Sinclair Fund, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, has an office in Broward County.
When a foreign corporation has an office in Florida, it is deemed to reside in the county in which the office is located for venue purposes. L.B. McLeod Const. Co. v. State, 106 Fla. 805, 148 So. 594 (Fla.1932). Although generally an action against multiple defendants residing in different counties may be brought in any county in which a defendant resides, section 47.021, Florida Statutes (1992), where a corporate defendant resides in the same county as an individual defendant, venue is only proper in that county of joint residence. Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1957); Walden Leasing, Inc. v. Modicamore, 559 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Plaintiff persuaded the trial court that venue in a contract action for payment of money is in the county where payment is to be made, citing Estes v. Pioneer Bonding & Insurance Agency, Inc., 567 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Plaintiff argues that contract actions are not governed by the principle announced in Enfinger, but cites no authority to support this argument. The first district recently applied the Enfinger rule in a breach of contract action against a corporate defendant and an individual defendant residing in the same county. Levy County School Board v. Bowdoin, 607 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Reversed.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lifemark Hosps. OF Fla., Inc. v. Roque, 727 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…inger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1957), provides that where multiple defendants have a common county of residence, venue is proper only in that county, even if one or more codefendants also reside in other counties. Sinclair Fund, Inc. v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Twigg v. Watt, 558 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accord Inter-Medic Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We are not persuaded by appellees’ contention that because the individual doctors practice…
-
Carbone v. Value Added Vacations, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…n the county of its residence. 96 So. 2d at 549. The joinder of the corporate defendant who has a place of business in the co-defendant’s county of residence should not defeat the latter’s venue privilege. Id. See also Sinclair Fund, Inc. v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions to transfer case to Miami-Dade County. PALMER and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . While the asset purchase agreement contains a mandatory venue selection provision (designating Orange Co…
-
Boca Research, Inc. v. Kroll Assocs., Inc., 677 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…s, 343 So. 2d at 952. Therefore, it is implied that the payment was to be remitted in Dade County, where KrolTs office is located. Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So. 2d at 343; Davis, 343 So. 2d at 952. See generally Sinclair Fund, Inc., v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(“When a foreign corporation has an office in Florida, it is deemed to reside in the county in which the office is located for venue purposes.”). Accordingly, the cause of action accrued in Dade County, and the trial court pr…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957)
- L. B. McLeod Constr. Co. v. State, 106 Fla. 805 (Fla. 1932)
- Inter-Medic Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Murphy, 400 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- The Levy Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Bowdoin, 607 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Clanton v. Honorable Calvin R. Mapp, 559 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Walden Leasing, Inc. v. Modicamore, 559 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Cushman Ins. Agency v. Sunshine Botanicals, Inc., 567 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Estes v. Pioneer Bonding & Ins. Agency, Inc., 567 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)