MILTON F. STEINHARDT, APARTMENT C 117, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND APARTMENT C 307, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PALM BEACH WHITE HOUSE NO. 3, INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, J. J. CULLOM, C. C. TOOLE, P. BATHELT, H. WOMERSLEY, R. BISSELL, AND M. ZDANIS, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court's order transferring a libel and tortious interference case from Dade County to Palm Beach County, holding that venue was proper in Dade County where the allegedly libelous newsletter was published and circulated.
Proper venue for the libel claim was in Dade County where the newsletter was published and read, and under section 47.041, Florida Statutes, the malicious interference claim could also be brought in Dade County as part of the joined action.
[1] A libel action may be properly maintained in a county where a newspaper or newsletter was circulated, even if it was not published in that county.
[2] Venue for an action involving multiple causes of action may be laid in any county where any of the causes of action arose.
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 libel action could be properly maintained under the venue statute, supra, in Florida in a county where a newspaper was circulated and such action need not be brought in the county where the newspaper was published”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that venue for libel actions is proper in counties where the allegedly libelous material is circulated, not just where it is published.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton Steinhardt and others filed a complaint against the appellees alleging libel and malicious interference with contractual relations. The complai…
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.
This interlocutory appeal seeks review of an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida which found that proper venue for this action was in Palm Beach County and directed the transfer of the papers filed in the cause to the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County as the proper court to hear the action. See Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.
The order transferring the cause to Palm Beach County because of improper venue in Dade does not set forth any reasons or grounds, and the appellee has not filed a brief in this appeal. The order simply holds that proper venue is in Palm Beach County, Florida. We are only advised by the appellant as to its opinion concerning the grounds upon which the order was based.
A complaint was filed by Milton F. Stein-hardt and others against the defendant-ap-pellees which charged them with libel and malicious interference with contractual relationship. Under the libel count it was alleged that the defendant-appellees had, jointly and severally, maliciously prepared and circulated a newsletter containing libelous material about Steinhardt. It alleged that the newsletter had been published and read in Dade County, Florida and that venue for the libel action was in Dade County, Florida.
The Supreme Court of Florida considered § 46.04 Fla.Stat. (now § 47.051, Fla. Stat.1967, F.S.A.) in Firstamerica Dev. Corp. v. Daytona Beach N.-J. Corp., Fla. 1967, 196 So.2d 97. It held that a libel action could be properly maintained under the venue statute, supra, in Florida in a county where a newspaper was circulated and such action need not be brought in the county where the newspaper was published. In Drummond v. Tribune Company, Fla. App.1966, 193 So.2d 183, venue was held proper for a libel suit against a newspaper in a county where the newspaper was sold and distributed.
The present appeal involves a newsletter, as opposed to a newspaper, but this would appear to be a distinction without a difference under the rationale of the cases above.
It appears, therefore, that proper venue for the alleged libelous .matter contained in the newsletter allegedly published and read in Dade County, Florida could be in Dade County, Florida.
Count Two of the complaint was based on a charge of malicious interference with a contractual relationship. § 47.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides:
“Actions on several causes of action may be brought in any county or district where any of the causes of action arose. When two or more causes of action joined arose in different counties, venue may be laid in any such counties, but the court may order separate trials if expedient.”
We, therefore, find that proper venue under the libel alleged in Count One of the complaint was in Dade County, Florida and that under § 47.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the venue for the allegations of Count Two of the complaint may also be brought in Dade County, Florida.
We are not passing on the sufficiency of the pleadings or on any other venue question except those specifically mentioned herein.
The order of transfer is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for further action consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crescent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…earson v. Wallace Aviation, Inc., 400 So. 2d 50, 51 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Motsinger v. E.B. Malone Corp., 297 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Costner v. Costner, 263 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Steinhardt v. Palm Beach Whitehouse No. 3, Inc., 237 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); James V. Freeman, Inc. v. Chemical Packaging Corp., 189 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). . See Orange Blossom Enterprises, Inc. v. Brumlik, 430 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc…
-
Derrick & Assocs. Pathology, P.A. v. Gary V. Kuehl, M.D., 617 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ose in different counties, venue may be laid in any of such counties, but the court may order separate trials if expedient. .See Pearson v. Wallace Aviation, Inc., 400 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Steinhardt v. Palm Beach White House No. 3, Inc., 237 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Motsinger v. E.B. Malone Corp., 297 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). . Section 47.122 provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.— For the convenience of the parties or witnesses…
-
Spector v. OLD Town KEY W. Dev., Ltd., 567 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…re any of the causes of action arose, requires the determinations that Dade County was the proper venue for the entire counterclaim and that the order transferring the cause therefore cannot stand.3 Steinhardt v. Palm Beach White House No. 3, Inc., 237 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Reversed. . The appellees’ brief claims that Count III of the counterclaim, which sought to require that the appellees-general partners discharge a mortgage which they had allegedly improperly imposed upon partnership property,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Firstamerica Dev. Corp. v. Daytona Beach News-Journal Corp., 196 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1966)
- Drummond v. The Tribune Co., 193 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)