MARGARET THOMPSON AND SERENDIPITY KEYS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A TAVERNIER HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEYSWAY INVESTMENT, INC., 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.
A contract provision designating venue is mandatory and enforceable unless enforcement is unreasonable or unjust.
Appellants were sued in Broward County for breach of contract. The contract contained a mandatory venue provision for Broward County, despite the coun…
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 Mandatory Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge.
This non-final appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. We affirm.
Appellants were sued in Broward County for an alleged breach of contract. Although Broward County has no relationship with the appellants or the subject matter of the alleged cause of action, the contract upon which the suit is based contained a provision that “Venue for any litigation arising out of this agreement shall lie in Broward County, Florida.” That language is not mere consent to venue lying in Broward County, but is viewed as mandatory. See Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and should be enforced in the absence of a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust. See Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla.1986).1 Accord, Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Progressive Mktg. Group, Inc., 801 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); America Online, Inc., v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423, 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Here the trial court did not find, nor did appellee make a showing, that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust. The order appealed is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur. . In the Manrique case, the court went on to make clear that the test of unreasonableness is not mere inconvenience or additional expense, but that the party seeking to escape his contract must show that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical pur poses be deprived of his day in court. Manrique, 493 So. 2d at 440 n. 4.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golden Palm Hospitality, Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 874 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…atives, it should not be dis [*1234] turbed.’ ”) (quoting Oliver v. Severance, 542 So. 2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). . See Friedman v. American Guardian Warranty Servs., Inc., 837 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Thompson v. Keysway Inv., Inc., 818 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Progressive Mktg. Group, Inc., 801 So. 2d 131, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 388 (Fla.2002); America Online, Inc. v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423, 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("Contractual fo…
Authorities Cited
- Manrique v. Giorgio Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1986)
- Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- KEA v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 801 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Am. Online, Inc. v. Hampton G. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)