AL PACKER, INC. D/B/A AL PACKER FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA AND GARY CONNOR, 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.
Al Packer, Inc., an intervenor in a replevin action, sought to transfer venue to Palm Beach County where an identical replevin action involving the same parties was previously filed. The court held that an indispensable party intervenor has standing to move for venue transfer and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.
An indispensable party intervenor has standing to move for a change of venue and occupies the same status as main parties to the action. Where two actions between the same parties are pending in different judicial circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process was first perfected. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Packer's venue transfer motion.
[1] An indispensable party has standing to move for a change of venue, even if the party is an intervenor.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to transfer venue when an indispensable party seeks the transfer to a court where a prior action involving the sam…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Packer, as an indispensable party, had standing to move to transfer the venue of the action below to the circuit court in Palm Beach County, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion.”
Statement of the court's conclusions on the central issues in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA replevin action was filed in circuit court. Al Packer, Inc. intervened in this action. A prior replevin action involving the same parties and same f…
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 Motion To Transfer Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because (a) the appellanVintervenor A1 Packer, Inc. [Packer] is clearly an indispensable party to the replevin action below, and (b) a replevin action, involving the same set of facts and the same parties as the replevin action below, was previously filed in the circuit court in Palm Beach County, we conclude that: (1) Packer, as an indispensable party, had standing to move to transfer the venue of the action below to the circuit court in Palm Beach County, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion.
We recognize that ordinarily an intervening party in an action takes the ease as he or she finds it because the intervention is necessarily “in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230; see Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So. 2d 718 (1946); Weiss v. Courshon, 618 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This means that an intervenor cannot, as a general rule, move to transfer the venue of an action. See Consolidated Gov’t of Jacksonville v. Adams, 213 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 218 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1968).
We conclude, however, that the rale is different where, as here, the intervenor is an indispensable party to the action. Under these circumstances, the intervenor occupies, in effect, the same status as the main parties to the action, and, accordingly, should have the same privileges, including the privilege of filing a motion for change of venue.
Beyond that, it is well settled that where, as here, there are two actions between the same parties pending in different judicial circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process was first perfected — here, the circuit court in Palm Beach County. Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So. 2d 842 (1943); Hogan v. Millican, 209 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); compare Towers Constr. Co. of Panama City, Inc. v. Key West Polo Club Apts., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), The final order under review denying Packer’s motion for a change of venue is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the subject motion transferring the instant action to the circuit corut in Palm Beach County.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FRY, 693 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…lies in that circuit where service of process was first perfected. Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla.1981); Fasco Indus., Inc. v. Goble, 678 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 650 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Centex-Rodgers Constr. Co. v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 591 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Towers Constr. Co. of Panama City, Inc. v. Key West Polo Club Apartments, Ltd., 569 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Th…
-
LET Miami Beach Decide v. City OF Miami Beach, 120 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…rdination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding....” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230. Although there is an exception to this rule for intervenors who are indispensable parties, Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 650 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“We recognize that ordinarily an intervening party in an action takes the case as he or she finds it.... We conclude, however, that the rule is different where, as here, the intervenor is an indispensable party to , the acti…
-
Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. v. Silver & Waldman, P.A., 737 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…iv. P. 1.170(a)). Additionally, jurisdiction over both actions lies in the circuit where service of process was first perfected. See Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981); Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 650 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Service of process was first perfected on Silver in the Bro-ward case on October 27, 1998; Silver did not file the Dade action until October 29, 1998. Thus, the Dade case should be transferred to the Broward Circuit Court so that…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr. v. Garden St. Mgmt. Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1981)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1946)
- Morgan v. State, 153 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1943)
- Cherry v. State, 618 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Hogan v. Millican, 209 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Towers Constr. Co. OF Panama City, Inc. v. KEY W. Polo Club Apts., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Jenkins Trucking Co. v. Emmons, 218 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1968)
- Rankin v. State, 218 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1968)