KRAFT FOODSERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THUNDER BOAT ROW & ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A HOOLIGANS/FT. APACHE, FORT APACHE MARINA, INC., AND JUAN ALMEIDA, 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 in supplementary proceedings cannot be transferred to a different county; the judgment court retains venue, though defendants may be examined in their county of residence.
Venue in supplementary proceedings under Florida Statutes section 56.29 remains with the court that entered the judgment and cannot be transferred, even if defendants reside or have principal places of business in another county.
[1] Venue in supplementary proceedings under Florida Statutes section 56.29 remains with the court that entered the judgment and cannot be transferred, though defendants may…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“venue in the case does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment”
Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat'l Bank explaining the nature of venue in supplementary proceedings
Kraft Foodservice obtained a judgment against Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., but could not collect payment, so it filed supplementary proceeding…
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 Proceedings Supplementary cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant obtained a judgment against Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., but was unable to collect payment. Appellant then filed supplementary proceedings against the other appellees, who moved to transfer venue to Dade County. Appellee Almeida alleged that he was a resident of Dade County, and Appellee Fort Apache Marina, Inc. alleged that it was a corporation with its principal place of business in Dade County and that it had no office and did no business in Palm Beach County. The trial court granted the motion to transfer; however, we reverse.
In Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court explained that in supplementary proceedings under section 56.29, Florida Statutes that: “venue in the case does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment.” As the court noted, section 56.29(2) provides that defendants in supplementary proceedings are to be examined, concerning their property, in the county of their residence. Thus, while venue cannot be transferred, defendants in supplementary proceedings are entitled to be examined in the county of their residence. Patterson v. Venne, 594 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We therefore reverse the order transferring venue.
STONE, C.J., and DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Accelerated Benefits Corp. & Gloria Grening Wolk, 817 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment.” Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see also Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assocs., Inc., 700 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Indeed, in Schwartz, the court stated that “[t]here is nothing in [chapter 56, Florida Statutes (1975),] which indicates that a new suit on supplementary proceedings after judgment may be filed in another county.” 365 So. 2d at…
-
Hughes v. Wilkerson, 49 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ementary proceedings to enforce the money judgment entered against the father in Palm Beach County, because venue for such proceedings remains with the court that entered the judgment. See Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assocs., Inc., 700 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Schwartz v. Capital City [*870] First Nat’l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Affirmed. GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…, 2017 WL 4944802, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2017). As such, courts have held that a supplementary proceeding under section 56.29 must begin in the court that entered judgement. Id. at *6; Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assoc., Inc., 700 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (denying motion to transfer and noting that, in a supplementary proceeding, venue does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but remains with the court which entered the judgment). Because the supplementary proceedin…
Authorities Cited
- Schwartz v. Cap. City First Nat'l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Patterson v. Venne, 594 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)