BOATARAMA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR LAWS, 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.
Boatarama appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss a complaint for improper venue filed by Laws in Collier County. The court affirms, holding that venue is proper in Collier County because the cause of action for return of a deposit accrues where payment is to be made, which is the location where Boatarama was obligated to refund Laws' deposit.
Venue is proper in Collier County because the cause of action for failure to return a deposit accrues where payment is to be made. Since Boatarama was obligated to refund the deposit to Laws in Collier County (his residence), venue in that county is appropriate.
[1] A cause of action for failure to return a deposit accrues where payment is to be made.
[2] A deposit not held in an escrow account creates a debtor-creditor relationship between the buyer and seller.
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“a cause of action for failure to return such a deposit, as money due and owing, accrues where payment is to be made”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining proper venue in deposit return cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaws, a Collier County resident, entered into a marine purchase agreement with Boatarama (principal place of business in Broward County) to purchase a…
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 Debtor-Creditor Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Boatarama, Inc. (“Boatarama”), appeals a nonfinal order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint of Arthur Laws on the basis of improper venue. We affirm because the cause of action accrued in Collier County where Boatarama was obligated to refund Mr. Laws’ deposit.
Mr. Laws, a resident of Collier County, entered into a marine purchase agreement to purchase a boat from Boatarama. Boa-tarama’s principal place of business is Bro-ward County. Pursuant to the agreement, Boatarama required Mr. Laws to make an $18,000 deposit toward the purchase of the boat. The agreement also provided that the boat would be ready for pre-inspection delivery in Dade County on a date certain. Should the boat not be ready on that date, Mr. Laws had the option to cancel the agreement and receive a return of his deposit.
Mr. Laws filed a lawsuit in Collier County seeking the return of his deposit. He alleged that the boat was not ready on the specified date. He had elected to cancel the agreement, but Boatarama had refused to return his deposit. Boatarama moved to dismiss Mr. Laws’ complaint on the basis of improper venue. The trial court denied Boatarama’s motion.
We affirm the trial court’s order on the authority of U.S.H. Properties Corp. v. Intercoastal Investments, 331 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), which held that a cause of action for failure to return such a deposit, as money due and owing, accrues where payment is to be made. In doing so, we note that we find no conflict with Earl W. Shomber & Co. v. Florida Casino Associates, 469 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Earl W. Shomber & Co. involved a deposit that was held in a formal escrow account pursuant to an escrow agreement. See generally 30A C.J.S. Escrows § 11 (1992). In this case, Mr. Laws’ deposit is not held in escrow. Instead, if his allegations are true, he has a debtor-creditor relationship with Boatarama. We also find no conflict with Goodwin v. Figueroa, 407 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), because the addendum to the agreement between the parties in this case specifically provided that Boatarama would return the deposit to Mr. Laws if a condition precedent was not satisfied and Mr. Laws validly canceled the agreement.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earl W. Shomber & Co., Inc. v. Fla. Casino Assocs., Inc., 469 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- U. S. H. Props. Corp. v. Intercoastal Invs. Inc., 331 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Goodwin v. Figueroa, 407 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)