BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HARVEY W. SEEDS POST NO. 29, DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN LEGION, ORGANIZED AND EXISTING BY VIRTUE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1919, 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 Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund sought to move a dispute over escrow funds to Leon County under Florida's home venue privilege for state agencies. The court reversed the trial judge's denial of the transfer motion, holding that the Board was entitled to venue in its home county of Tallahassee because none of the recognized exceptions to the home venue privilege applied.
The Board of Trustees was entitled to venue in Leon County. The trial court erred in denying the transfer motion because none of the recognized exceptions to Florida's home venue privilege for state agencies—waiver, the 'sword wielder' exception, joint tortfeasor status, or the Sun-Sentinel exception—applied to the circumstances of this case.
[1] A state agency is entitled to the venue privilege of being sued only at its headquarters unless a recognized exception applies.
[2] The venue privilege of a state agency is not waived by the mere filing of an interpleader action by a third party.
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“it is an immutable principle that, under Florida's home venue privilege, a state agency such as the appellant may be sued only at its headquarters, here, Tallahassee, unless one of the recognized exceptions to that rule applies.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that state agencies have home venue privilege at their headquarters unless exceptions apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA title company held funds in escrow pending resolution of a dispute between the Board of Trustees and Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 regarding entitleme…
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 Home Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
This case concerns a sum held in escrow by a title company, pending resolution of a dispute between the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 as to the entitlement to the fund under conditions of a Trustees’ 1966 deed of state property to the Post. The company filed an interpleader action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, depositing the amount in dispute in the court registry, and was dismissed from the action. In the ensuing proceeding between the Trustees and the Post, the Trustees moved to transfer the case to Leon County under the familiar venue privilege conferred upon state agencies. See Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So. 2d 844 (1948). The trial judge denied the motion but we reverse and remand with directions to transfer the case to Leon County.
Notwithstanding the general attractiveness of retaining the case here, it is an immutable principle that, under Florida’s home venue privilege, a state agency such as the appellant may be sued only at its headquarters, here, Tallahassee, unless one of the recognized exceptions to that rule applies. See Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.2004); Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sch. Bd. of Osceola County v. State Bd. of Educ., 903 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Fla. Dep’t of Ins. v. Amador, 841 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
None does. The circumstances of this case simply do not fit into any of those limited categories; that is (1) there is no waiver, Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1287-88; (2) the “sword wielder” exception is inapplicable because the Post cannot be regarded as raising a “shield against the state’s thrust,” Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1288 (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Ins. v. Amador, 841 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)); Dep’t of Revenue v.
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Ft. Myers, 256 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)(mere demand is insufficient to render sword wielder exception applicable); (3) it is clear that the Trustees and the Post are not “joint tortfeasors,” Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1288; Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392, 395 (Fla.1983); and (4) the exception created in Sun-Sentinel is plainly not involved.
Hence, there is no choice but to reverse and remand with directions to transfer the now-pending action between appellant and appellee to the Second Circuit.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castle Beach Club Condo., Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 96 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ege unless: (1) it is inapplicable, based upon an exception recognized by the Florida Supreme Court or by statute; or (2) it has been waived. Id. at 1287-88; see also Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29, 948 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“[I]t is an immutable principle that, under Florida’s home venue privilege, a state agency ... may be sued only at its headquarters ... unless one of the recognized exceptions to that rule applies.”). Castle Beach concedes…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Madison Cnty. v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1983)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fort Myers, 256 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580 (Fla. 1948)
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2004)
- Spradley v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Osceola Cnty. v. State Bd. OF Educ., 903 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Adel Sidky, M.D., 936 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Fla. Dep't of Ins. v. Amador, 841 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Whitney v. State, 936 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)