THOMAS N. TOMPKINS, ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
ACADIA PARTNERS, L.P., 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 Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's order transferring a civil action from Osceola County to Orange County under Florida Statute § 47.122. The court held that a trial judge may consider amendments to the complaint and newly added defendants when determining whether a venue change serves the convenience of the parties or the interests of justice.
Section 47.122 authorizes a venue change based on the most current complaint, including amendments and newly added parties. A trial court may consider whether the current complaint could have been filed in the destination county at the time of original filing to determine if a venue change is appropriate for the convenience of parties or the interests of justice.
[1] A court may transfer a civil action to another court of record if the transfer is for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.
[2] Amendments to a complaint relate back to the date of the original filing for purposes of venue analysis.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.”
The statutory language authorizing venue transfers under Florida Statute § 47.122
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe action was originally filed against Thomas and Marcia Tompkins, who lived in Osceola County, based on a cause of action arising in that county. Ov…
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 Relation Back Of Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Thomas Tompkins, Marcia Tompkins, and Foley and Lardner, defendants in the action below, have each filed separate appeals of the trial judge’s order changing venue of the action from Osceola County to Orange County. We consolidate the appeals and affirm the trial court.
The issues are these: Does section 47.122, Florida Statutes, authorize this change of venue and, if so, is the judge’s order supported by the record?
Section 47.122 provides:
For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.
The action as originally filed was against only Mr. and Mrs. Tompkins who lived in Osceola County and on a cause of action arising in Osceola County. However, during the several years that this case has been pending, it has been amended to include other defendants who live in or have their business in Orange County. In addition, one count now involves a cause of action alleged to have occurred in Orange County. It is appellants’ position that although the current complaint, if filed today, might be appropriate in Orange County, the statute refers only to the original filing circumstances. We disagree. There is no question that the filing of an amendment relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint. Fla. R. Civ. Pro 1.190(e); Palm Beach County v. Savage Const. Co., 627 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The purpose of the statute seems equally as applicable to added parties as it does to the original parties. We see no policy reason to restrict the venue protection as appellants urge. To the contrary, a “liberal” reading of the statute supports extending the “convenience” protection to all parties properly brought into the action. For example, Foley and Lardner, late arrivals, should be able to invoke the protection of the statute as well as the Tompkins or Acadia. We believe that when a court is faced with a change of venue issue relating to the convenience of the parties, it is free to consider the most current complaint in order to determine whether such complaint could have been filed in a particular county when the original action was filed. If such county would have been appropriate then, assuming the current complaint had been filed, a change of venue to that county is authorized.
On the second issue, the trial court has issued a six page order detailing why it thought the change of venue was appropriate. We find the reasons given are supported by the record and justify the court’s action.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acadia P'rs, L.P. v. Tompkins, 759 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…n appeal or cross-appeal, we affirm the final judgment entered by the trial court. AFFIRMED. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . This is the- fourth time that issues in this case have been before this court. See Tompkins v. Acadia Partners, L.P., 702 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Acadia Partners, L.P. v. Tompkins, 673 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 678 So. 2d 340 (Fla.), and review denied sub nom., Foley & Lardner v. Acadia Partners, L.P., 678 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1996); Tompkins Inv. Group, Inc. v.…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lesia Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…urrent complaint. Under these circumstances, the trial court should have examined only the most recently amended complaint, including added or dropped parties, when it determined the convenience of the parties. See Tompkins v. Acadia Partners, L.P., 702 So. 2d 1340, 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (finding that the trial court should have “considered] the most current complaint in order to determine whether such complaint could have been filed in a particular county when the original action was filed.”). In this cas…
-
ATP Tour, Inc. v. Horst Skoff, 758 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ccordingly, we affirm. II. Martin and Firstlab’s Appeal Martin and Firstlab argue that they were entitled to a forum non conve-niens analysis by the trial court independent of its finding of waiver as to ATP. See Tompkins v. Acadia Partners, L.P., 702 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding change of venue was authorized based on the amended complaint, despite the fact that the original complaint could not have been brought in the newly-selected forum); Straske v. McGillicuddy, 388 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Beach Cnty. v. Savage Constr. Corp., 627 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)