JOHN MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
HOMES BY WHITAKER, 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.
Mason appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to transfer venue of a breach of contract action from Marion County to Clay County to consolidate it with a related lien foreclosure action. The appellate court reversed, holding that despite a forum selection clause requiring Marion County, consolidation in Clay County was necessary to avoid multiple lawsuits and inconsistent results.
A mandatory forum selection clause should generally be enforced, but a court need not abide by such an agreement where compelling reasons exist not to enforce it. Here, consolidating the cases in Clay County was necessary to avoid multiple lawsuits, minimize judicial labor, reduce party expenses, and prevent inconsistent results.
[1] A mandatory forum selection clause in a contract should generally be enforced unless it is unreasonable or unjust.
[2] A court is not bound to enforce a contractual forum selection clause when compelling reasons exist not to do so.
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 mandatory forum selection clause contained in a contract should be enforced absent a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust”
States the general rule favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMason and Homes by Whitaker entered into a written construction contract for property in Clay County, Florida, containing a venue provision requiring …
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 Forum Selection Clause Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Mason appeals the denial of his motion to transfer venue of his breach of contract case to consolidate that action with a lien foreclosure action involving the same parties and the same property. On the facts presented here, we agree that the trial court erred in refusing to transfer venue.
John Mason and Homes By Whitaker, Inc. (“Homes”) entered into a written contract for Homes to construct a new residence on Mason’s real property located in Clay County, Florida. The contract provided that “any action resulting from any breach ... be [brought] in Marion County, Florida.” During the course of construe tion, a dispute arose and the parties terminated their business relationship.
Mason then filed a breach of contract action against Homes in Marion County, Florida. Homes answered Mason’s complaint, denying most of the allegations and asserting various defenses. Shortly thereafter, Homes recorded a claim of lien and filed a complaint to foreclose its lien in Clay County. Mason answered the Clay County complaint, and, subsequently, moved to transfer venue1 of the Marion County proceedings to Clay County so that the two cases could be consolidated.
The court considered written submissions from the parties, but did not hold a hearing or receive any supporting affidavits or live testimony.
The trial court then denied the motion to transfer venue, concluding that the contract’s venue provision controlled, and finding, without any record evidence, that a substantial portion of Homes’s business was conducted in Marion County and all of its material witnesses either resided or worked in Marion County. Mason now seeks review of that order. As a general proposition, a mandatory forum selection clause contained in a contract should be enforced absent a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust. Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. Roberts Plumbing Contractors, Inc., 800 So. 2d 285, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
However, a court is not bound to abide by such an agreement where, as here, there are compelling reasons not to enforce it. Interval Mktg. Assocs. v. Sea Club Assocs. IV, 468 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In the instant case, the parties agree that the lien foreclosure action can only be brought in Clay County, where the property is located. Transfer of the Marion County case to Clay County would avoid multiple lawsuits, minimize judicial labor, reduce the expenses to the parties and avoid inconsistent results. In both cases, the witnesses and the basic dispute are the same. Having separate proceedings makes no sense, despite the forum selection provision in the contract.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mason’s motion to change venue and remand this matter for further action consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . The motion was filed pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RJG Env't, Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ot a party to those agreements. Even if it were, the venue provision may yield to more compelling considerations. See Interval Mktg. Assocs. Inc. v. Sea Club Assocs. IV, Ltd., 468 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Mason v. Homes By Whitaker, Inc., 971 So. 2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The assignments did not alter the fact that the homeowners reside in Palm Beach County where the damage occurred and where the critical witnesses are located. Although RJG’s venue selection is “meaningful” in assessing the…
-
Love's Window & Door Installation, Inc. v. Acousti Eng'g Co., 147 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…the provision. Compelling reasons not to enforce a forum selection clause include avoiding multiple lawsuits, minimizing judicial labor, reducing the expenses to the parties, and avoiding inconsistent results. See Mason v. Homes by Whitaker, Inc., 971 So. 2d 1029, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Girdley Constr. Co. v. Architectural Exteriors, Inc., 517 So. 2d 137, 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (holding a forum selection provision should not be enforced when a transfer of venue would result in multiple suits and split…
-
Saad Homes, Inc. v. Rivero, 23 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…y. E.g., Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1996). We agree that Broward County is the appropriate venue since the property is located in Broward County. Ga. Cas. Co. v. O’Donnell, 147 So. at 267; Mason v. Homes by Whitaker, Inc., 971 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (finding error in trial court’s denial of contractor’s motion to transfer venue to Clay County where construction lien was filed on property located in Clay County); Tietig v. Riccio, 451 So. 2d at 1016 (holding that mechanic’s l…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Interval Mktg. Assocs., Inc. v. SEA Club Assocs. IV, Ltd., 468 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. Roberts Plumbing Contractors, Inc., 800 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)