BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM KARGAUER, ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Browning-Ferris Industries Chemical Services, Inc., [Browning] appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to transfer this cause from Dade County to Broward County. Although the motion is best described as “bare bones,” it does demonstrate that the cause should be transferred to Bro-ward County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1996). As we find that it was an abuse of discretion by the trial court not to order the transfer, see Burger King Corp. v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the order appealed is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to grant Browning’s motion to transfer venue to Broward County.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baja Vill. Mkts., Inc. v. Baja Supermarket, Inc., 712 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ually clear that before a court may strike a party’s pleadings, “a trial court is required to make an express determination as to whether the offending party’s actions were willful or deliberate.” See Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). There was no finding by the lower court that the appellant’s failure to comply with the court’s order was willful, deliberate, or in disregard of the court’s authority, and the record could not support any such finding. As…1 / 2
-
Rose v. Inge B. Ford, 861 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…can be imposed only upon a party’s willful and deliberate disregard of a court’s authority and by the express determination by the court that the party’s actions were willful or deliberate); see also Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). While the trial court stated that the appellant did not adhere to payment schedules agreed to by the parties, no finding was made as to his ability to pay. Rather than employ such a harsh sanction as striking appellant’s ple…
-
Munoz v. Pedro Alvarez, M.D., 774 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…, 699 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Because the order does not, as required, state that the claimed noncompliance was willful or deliberate, see Walden v. Adekola, 773 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Visoly v. Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., 707 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and, more important, because the circumstances revealed by the record show, as a matter of law, that no such finding could be properly rendered or sustained, see Commonwealth Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (F…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Koeppel, 564 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)