HOLLYWOOD MEMORIAL PARK, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPHINE ROSART AND HER HUSBAND, JAMES ROSART, APPELLEES
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.
Hollywood Memorial Park, Inc., a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in Florida, appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to change venue in a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court affirmed, holding that a foreign corporation not doing business in Florida has no statutory venue privilege and is subject to the common-law rule allowing suit in any county where jurisdiction can be secured.
A foreign corporation not doing business in Florida has no statutory venue privilege and common law governs, permitting suit in any county where the defendant can be found. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to transfer the case under forum non conveniens.
“since the appellant, a non-resident corporation, did not have an agent or representative in Florida, and did not do business within the state, service of process was effected under §§ 47.29 and 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides for substituted service upon a non-resident automobile owner by service upon the Secretary of State”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis through non-resident motorist statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollywood Memorial Park, Inc., a foreign corporation with no agents or representatives in Florida, owned an automobile involved in a collision with 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 Forum Non Conveniens cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal grew out of the same order appealed in case No. 60-431, Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, Fla.App., 124 So.2d 708.
Briefly we state the facts as they apply to the issues raised on this appeal. The appellant is a foreign corporation neither authorized to do business, nor having agents or representatives in the State of Florida. An automobile owned by the appellant was involved in an accident in St. Johns County, Florida, with a bus owned and operated by the Greyhound Corporation, a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida. The-appellee wife was a passenger on the Greyhound bus and claimed damages as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.
The appellant here first contends that as a foreign corporation not doing business in the State of Florida, and having no agents or representatives, it is entitled to the privilege of being sued in the county where the cause of action accrued, to wit: St. Johns-County, Florida. Our attention has not been directed to, nor are we aware of, any statutes or decisions granting such a privilege.
It should be observed that since the appellant, a non-resident corporation, did not have an agent or representative in Florida, and did not do business within the state, service of process was effected under §§ 47.29 and 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides for substituted service upon a non-resident automobile owner by service upon the Secretary of State. See Bowman v. Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., D.C.1959, 173 F.Supp. 282. These non-resident motorist statutes do not contain venue provisions as such, and our general venue statutes,1 although containing provisions applicable to domestic corporations and foreign corporations doing business within the state, do not grant such privilege to a foreign corporation which is not doing business in Florida. Section 46.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
In State ex rel. Bernhart v. Barrs, 152 Fla. 631, 12 So.2d 576, which involved am action against an individual non-resident motorist, the Supreme Court determined that the legislature did not intend to extend to non-resident defendants the venue privilege granted by the statute,2 and held that the action could be brought in any county where the defendant could be found.
There being no venue provisions as such in the non-resident motorist statutes, and *714'the general venue statutes failing to provide any venue privilege for foreign corporations not doing business in the state, we conclude, as did the Supreme Court in the Bernhart case, that the common-law rule governs. See Alcarese v. Stinger, 197 Md. 236, 78 A.2d 651, and other cases collected in 38 A.L.R.2d 1198. Of course, under common law, venue of a transitory action, as is the present case, could be laid in any county where the court could secure jurisdiction of the defendant. See Linger v. Balfour, 102 Fla. 591, 136 So. 433; State ex rel. Bernhart v. Barrs, supra.
The second question urged by the appellant is the right of a trial judge to transfer a cause of action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and whether, under the circumstances and facts of this case, he should have exercised that right. This question has heretofore been treated in case No. 60-431, and we feel that the answer there suffices in this instance.
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland Compania Maritima v. Pantelis Logothetis, 378 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…or . .” The general venue statutes fail to provide any venue privilege for foreign corporations not doing business in the state, and such action may be brought in any county where jurisdiction can be secured. Hollywood Memorial Park, Inc. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 712 (Fla.3d DCA 1960). Thus, the lower court’s finding of venue in Hillsbor-ough County may be upheld if there is competent evidence either that appellant was not doing business in Florida, or that appellant was doing business in Florida and had an agen…
-
United Engines, Inc. v. Citmoco Servs., Inc., 418 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…a nonresident individual or a foreign corporation not doing business in Florida, it must defend a transitory action against it in any county where jurisdiction over it is obtained. § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1981); Hollywood Memorial Park, Inc. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 712 [*411] (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); St. Mary’s Oil Engine Co. v. Jackson Ice & Fuel Co., 224 Ala. 152, 138 So. 834 (1932). We accordingly affirm. GRIMES, A. C. J., and RYDER, J., concur. . For a discussion of local and transitory actions, see McMullen v.…
-
Valle v. Mador, 478 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…privilege. The cases upon which they rely, however, do not support their position. Kauffman v. King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1956) (en bane); State ex rel. Bernhart v. Barrs, 152 Fla. 631, 12 So. 2d 576 (1943); and Hollywood Memorial Park, Inc. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), apply the principle that non-residents may not avail themselves of venue privileges. In the case before us, however, Mador was a Florida resident at the time of service as well as at the time the complaint was filed. His un-contr…
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
- Greyhound Corp. v. Rosart, 124 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Linger v. Balfour, 102 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Burton Barrs, 152 Fla. 631 (Fla. 1943)