MARY C. KELLY AND HAROLD KELLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUN & SEA ESTATES, LTD., INC. D/B/A QUALITY ATLANTIC BEACH & GOLF 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 appellants appealed the dismissal of their personal injury action on forum non conveniens grounds. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to apply the four-step analysis mandated by the supreme court's recent Kinney decision and did not make written findings supporting its dismissal order.
The court held that the trial court failed to properly apply the four-step analysis required by Kinney and must reconsider the forum non conveniens motion with written findings addressing: (1) whether an adequate alternative forum exists with jurisdiction; (2) private interest factors with deference to the plaintiffs' forum choice; (3) public interest factors if private interests are balanced; and (4) whether plaintiffs can reinstate their suit without undue inconvenience or prejudice.
[1] A trial court must engage in a four-step analysis when considering a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, including determining the existence of an adequate altern…
[2] A trial court's order of dismissal for forum non conveniens must be reversed and remanded if the court fails to make written findings supporting its decision.
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“Kinney mandates that a trial court engage in a four-step analysis, namely: 1) the court must determine "whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case"; 2) the court "must consider all relevant factors of private interest, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs' initial forum choice"”
Establishes the mandatory four-step analysis required for forum non conveniens motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary C. Kelly and Harold Kelly filed a personal injury action against Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc. (Quality Atlantic Beach & Golf Resort). The trial …
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 Adequate Alternative Forum cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal the dismissal of their personal injury action based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We note that the order under review was rendered prior to the supreme court’s recent pronouncement in Kinney System,, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996). Appellants correctly concede that Kinney has completely rendered their first argument on appeal moot. We, therefore, do not belabor the issue here.
Appellants next argue essentially that the trial court did not engage in the proper analysis when it determined that the Bahamian courts were the more appropriate forum for this action. In entertaining a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, Kinney mandates that a trial court engage in a four-step analysis, namely:
1) the court must determine “whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole ease”;
2) the court “must consider all relevant factors of private interest, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice”;
3) “[i]f the ... balance of private interests is in equipoise or near equipoise, [the court] must then determine whether or not factors of public interest tip the balance” toward another forum; and finally
4) if the balance favors another forum, the court must “ensure that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.”
674 So. 2d at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F. 2d 775, 784-85 (D.C.Cir.1980)).
Because the parties to this appeal are in dispute as to whether any or all of these factors were nevertheless considered or adequately considered by the trial court below, and the court made no written findings in support of its order, we are constrained to reverse the order under review and remand with instructions to the court to make the requisite findings outlined in Kinney. Banco De La Construccion, S.A. v. Inversiones Y Commercio, Inc., 677 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In reconsidering this motion in the aftermath of Kinney however, we remind the court below of the further admonition made by the supreme court:
Where new or renewed motions for forum non conveniens dismissal are prompted in such cases by this opinion, we direct that the lower courts shall not order dismissal if doing so would actually undermine the interests that forum non conveniens seeks to preserve. These include avoiding a waste of resources (including resources already expended), avoiding forcing a plaintiff into a forum where a statute of limitation may have expired, or other similar problems. For example, we believe it would be contrary to the doctrine to order dismissal where the parties — relying on Houston [v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1978) ] — have substantially completed discovery or are now ready for a Florida trial or where they have completed trial and are seeking a Florida appeal, unless all parties consent to an application of the doctrine outlined here.
Kinney at 93-94.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carenza v. SUN Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…dings in the trial court’s order, we must reverse the [*832] order under review with instructions to the trial court to adequately set forth its findings and conclusions under Kinney. See Rikamor, 690 So. 2d at 697; Kelly v. Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., 681 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Compounding this court’s confusion as to the adequacy of the lower court’s Kinney ■analysis is that defendants offered no sworn proof to the trial court to substantiate the assertions made in their motion to dismiss. “A transfer…
-
Smith Barney Inc. v. Potter, 725 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ew. I would remand for the trial court to make the necessary Kinney findings as this court did in Carenza v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and as the Third District did in Kelly v. Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc., 681 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In any event, on the record before us, I would not reverse because I do not see how the appellants have shown an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. The defendant bears the burden of per…
-
Elena Laura Pessino Gomez Del Campo Bacardi v. Elena Gomez Del Campo Bacardi De Lindzon, 728 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…the issues in dispute, to assess the materiality or importance of witnesses and facts to the case, or to demonstrate such analysis in its order. Unlike Rikamor, Ltd. v. Oded, 690 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Kelly v. Sun & Sea Estates, Ltd., Inc., 681 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), Carenza v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 699 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Booker v. Booker, 636 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the record contains evidence in support of the motion and demonstrates that the court analyzed the K…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996)
- Pain v. United Techs. Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
- Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Trotter, 677 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)