SANFORD AUTO DEALERS EXCHANGE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FIELDS MOTORCARS OF FLORIDA, INC., ETC., 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.
Sanford Auto Dealers Exchange appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to change venue from Orange County to Seminole County in a contract dispute over non-payment for motor vehicles. The court affirmed, holding that when a contract fails to specify the place of payment, venue is presumptively proper in the county where the plaintiff has its principal place of business, and the defendant failed to overcome this presumption.
Venue was properly established in Orange County under Florida law. When a contract fails to specify the place of payment, a presumption arises that a cause of action for non-payment is properly brought in the county where the plaintiff has its principal place of business. This presumption may be overcome only by showing a clear, lengthy, uninterrupted pattern of conduct between the parties, which Sanford Auto failed to demonstrate.
[1] When a contract fails to specify the place where payments are to be made, a presumption is created that a cause of action for nonpayment is properly brought in the county…
[2] A presumption that venue is proper in the plaintiff's principal place of business for nonpayment actions may be overcome by a contrary lengthy, uninterrupted pattern of c…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When a contract fails to specify the place where payments are to be made, a presumption is created that a cause of action for nonpayment is properly brought in the county where the plaintiff has its principal place of business.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle for venue in non-payment contract actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFields Motor Cars of Florida, Inc. (headquartered in Orange County) sued Sanford Auto Dealers Exchange, Inc. (headquartered in Seminole County) in Ora…
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.
[*1145] PLEUS, J.
Sanford Auto Dealers Exchange, Inc., appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion for change of venue from Orange County to Seminole County.
Fields Motor Cars of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Fields BMW, a Florida corporation headquartered in Orange County, Florida, sued Sanford Auto, a Florida corporation headquartered in Seminole County, Florida, in Orange County for damages arising out of Sanford Auto’s alleged non-payment for six motor vehicles.
Sanford Auto moved unsuccessfully to transfer venue to Seminole County, claiming it conducts its business in that county and that the complaint failed to allege facts establishing that the cause of action accrued in Orange County. Sanford Auto further asserted that the affidavit of its vice president establishes venue in Seminole County. Fields BMW maintains that because the parties failed to designate the place of payment, under Florida law it is deemed to be where the plaintiff has its principal place of business and thus, venue is proper in Orange County.
We affirm the order denying the motion to transfer venue. When a contract fails to specify the place where payments are to be made, a presumption is created that a cause of action for nonpayment is properly brought in the county where the plaintiff has its principal place of business. Michael Schiffrin & Assocs., P.A. v. Koraly, 957 So. 2d 655, 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). This presumption may be overcome by a contrary lengthy, uninterrupted pattern of conduct between the parties. See Pinch-A-Penny, Inc. v. Mudd, 464 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The affidavit of Sanford Auto’s vice president did not establish a clear, uninterrupted pattern of payment at its place of business in Seminole County sufficient to overcome the presumption. See, e.g., Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
AFFIRMED.
LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tomac OF Fla., Inc. v. Gunn's Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc., 17 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…146, 150-51 (1934)). While that presumption can be overcome, to do so the debtor must present sufficient evidence establishing a clear, lengthy, and uninterrupted course of conduct. Sanford Auto Dealers Exch., Inc. v. Fields Motorcars of Fla., Inc., 988 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Pinch-A-Penny, Inc. v. Mudd, 464 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). When the debtor fails to do so, the presumption prevails. In this case, the trial court found the debtor had failed to overcome the presumption. Because…
Authorities Cited
- Carlson-Southeast Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Pinch-A-Penny, Inc. v. Mudd, 464 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Michael Schiffrin & Assocs., P.A. v. Koraly, 957 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)