VL ORLANDO BUILDING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AGD HOSPITALITY DESIGN & PURCHASING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JOEL MIRON AND VINCENT MEOLA, 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.
VL Orlando Building Corp. sued AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc. in Broward County for breach of a construction contract involving Orlando property. When AGD counterclaimed for mechanic's lien foreclosure and moved to transfer venue to Orange County, the trial court granted the transfer. VL appeals, arguing the Broward court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the mechanic's lien count and therefore could not transfer it.
The Broward circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over mechanic's lien foreclosures and did not lack jurisdiction over the lien count. The trial court properly transferred venue to Orange County under Florida Statutes section 47.122 in the interest of justice to avoid piecemeal litigation and inconsistent results.
[1] Actions to foreclose liens on real property are local and must be brought in the county in which the land lies.
[2] A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over the class of cases involving mechanic's lien foreclosures, even if the property is located in another county.
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“Subject matter jurisdiction means 'the power of the court to adjudicate the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.'”
Establishes the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and territorial/in rem jurisdiction in the context of mechanic's lien foreclosures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVL Orlando Building Corp., the owner of Orlando property, sued AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc., a contractor, in Broward County for breach o…
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 Convenience Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant 'VL Orlando Building Corp. (VLX'the owner of property in Orlando, sued appellee, AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc. (AGD), for breach of a construction contract for improvements on that property. It filed the suit, however, in Broward County. The contractor, AGD, filed a counterclaim requesting, among other things, foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien on the Orlando property. The con tractor also moved to transfer venue to Orange County, which the trial court granted, and it is that order which has been appealed.
The owner argues that its suit against the contractor was properly filed in Bro-ward because the contractor’s principal place of business is in Broward. The owner contends that the trial court should have granted its motion to dismiss the count for a mechanic’s lien on the ground that the Broward court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that count, because the property was in Orange County. Georgia Cas. v. O’Donnell, 109 Fla. 290, 147 So. 267 (1933)(actions to foreclose liens are regarded as local and can be brought only in the county in which the land lies).
The owner reasons that if the Broward court had no subject matter jurisdiction-over the Orlando property, it could only dismiss the mechanic’s lien count, not transfer that count along with the rest of the case. Apparently the owner believes that if it had been successful in having the mechanic’s lien count dismissed,. there would no longer have been any basis for the Broward court to have transferred the remaining counts to Orange County.
The owner’s assumption that the Broward circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the mechanic’s lien count is incorrect. Although the exclusive jurisdiction of a circuit court to foreclose a lien on property in that circuit has been loosely referred to as subject matter jurisdiction, Hudlett v. Sanderson, 715 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) and cases cited, that is a misnomer. Subject matter jurisdiction means “the power of the court to adjudicate the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.” Crill v. State Road Dep’t, 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795, 798 (1928). The Broward circuit court has jurisdiction over mechanic lien foreclosures and, accordingly, did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over that count.
The jurisdiction of a circuit court over property in its circuit is, according to the Florida Supreme Court, “territorial” and “in rem” jurisdiction. Ruth v. Department of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181, 186 (Fla.1996). In Ruth, the state was seeking, by complaint filed in Polk County, forfeiture of real property in other counties, and' our supreme court concluded that the claims should have been transferred to the courts having “territorial and consequently in rem jurisdiction.” Id. at 186.
In Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diaz, 578 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we affirmed an order transferring; venue, for the convenience of the parties,, under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, under circumstances which are analogous to those in this case. We found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in “transferring venue in the interest of justice to avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results.” We therefore affirm.
GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fort v. Fort, 951 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…So. 2d 1280, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), “[sjubject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of the court to adjudicate the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.’ ” (quoting VL Orlando Bldg. Corp. v. AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc., 762 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), quoting Crill v. State Road Dep’t, 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795, 798 (1928)). A circuit court has the power to adjudicate claims for modification of a final judgment of dissolution; the claim here simply lacks a basis in law. F…
-
Melida A. Demorizi v. Nestor M. Demorizi, 851 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…813 So. 2d 1070, 1070-71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Our rules governing “law of the case” and venue frequently cite to the avoidance of piecemeal litigation as its rationale. See, e.g., VL Orlando Bldg. Corp. v. AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc., 762 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming transfer of venue in the interest of justice to avoid piecemeal litigation). Our rules of criminal procedure also take into consideration the reduction of piecemeal litigation. See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.19…
-
Garcia-Roque v. Roque-Velasco, 855 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…So. 2d 1280, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of the court to adjudicate the class of eases to which the particular case belongs.’ ” (quoting VL Orlando Bldg. Corp. v. AGD Hospitality Design & Purchasing, Inc., 762 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). It is undisputed that a circuit court has the power to adjudicate claims for constructive trust, fraud and accounting. As in Partridge, Mr. Roque’s claim is not lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but rather divisional j…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crill v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 96 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1928)
- Ga. Cas. Co. v. O'Donnell, 109 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1933)
- Ruth v. Dep't OF Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1996)
- Hudlett v. Sanderson, 715 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Philips v. State, 578 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)