BMS OF BROWARD, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MIKE CARTER, 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 the trial court erred in denying a continuance for an evidentiary hearing on a motion to transfer venue.
Appellee filed a motion to transfer venue, which was heard on the motion calendar. Appellant requested a continuance to present witnesses, which was d…
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
FLETCHER, Judge.
BMS of Broward, Inc. [BMS] appeals an order granting appellee Mike Carter’s motion to transfer the action to Manatee County, Florida. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Carter’s motion to transfer was noticed by him for hearing on the trial court’s motion calendar. At the hearing BMS requested a continuance to a date when it could present its witnesses, the attendance of whom BMS had not secured for the motion calendar hearing. The court denied the request, heard the motion without the presentation of BMS’ testimony, and granted it.
In Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA1997) we observed:
“It is expected that motion calendar hearings are for the purpose of resolving matters which require little time and are limited to arguments of counsel. While there is nothing to prevent the trial court from hearing testimony in uncontested matters, or by agreement of all involved, testimony in disputed matters comes as a surprise at motion calendar.”
While we believe that the better practice in this case may have been for BMS to seek a continuance in advance of the motion calendar hearing (rather than at it) we nonetheless conclude that BMS reasonably expected no testimony to be taken at that time, thus did not act unreasonably in not securing the attendance of its witnesses and the trial court should have granted BMS’ request for a continuance. The “order granting motion to transfer” is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Carter’s motion to transfer. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…is the authority of first appearance [*1243] judges to modify a bond amount that has been previously set. The procedure to be followed is clearly set forth in the rule. Moreover, I agree with the opinion of Chief Judge Schwartz in McCoy v. State, 702 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and accordingly would deny the petition. . This case is one of several from the same circuit involving the same issue. My reading of the transcripts leads me to believe that the real controversy is deeper than the issue presen…1 / 3
-
State v. Norris, 768 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2000)…[*1071] WELLS, C.J. We have for review Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in McCoy v. State, 702 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The relevant facts of this case as set forth in the Fifth District’s opinion are as follows: The Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit issued administrative order A99…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)