WILLIAM GORMAN, EARL GORMAN, AND ERNEST RAPP, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROYAL AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Appellants sought review of an order denying their motion to dismiss or transfer a promissory note action for improper venue. The court affirmed the lower court's denial, finding the action properly brought in Bay County where the underlying construction transaction was consummated, despite the note being signed by the makers in Orange County where they reside.
Venue was proper in Bay County. Although the statute provides that actions on promissory notes shall be brought where the note was signed by the maker or where the maker resides, the court found the challenged order denying the motion to dismiss or transfer to be without substantial merit, affirming the lower court's determination that Bay County was an appropriate venue.
[1] Venue for actions on promissory notes is proper in the county where the note was signed or where the maker resides.
[2] When a promissory note is signed by makers in more than one county, an action on the note may be brought in any of those counties.
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“Actions on unsecured negotiable or nonnegotiable promissory notes shall be brought only in the county or district in which such notes were signed by the maker or one of the makers, or in which the maker resides or one of the makers resides.”
This establishes the statutory venue rule for promissory note actions under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants William Gorman, Earl Gorman, and Ernest Rapp were defendants sued on a promissory note in Bay County Circuit Court. They averred that they …
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 Proper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, who were defendants in the trial court, seek review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the Circuit Court of Orange County for further proceedings.1
This action was instituted in the Circuit Court of Bay County. In support of their motion appellants filed an affidavit averring that the promissory note sued upon was signed by them as makers in Orange County where all of appellants reside and, therefore, the proper venue of the action is Orange County.2
In opposition to the motion filed by appellants, appellee filed an affidavit executed by one of its officers averring that the indebtedness for which judgment is sought in this action grew out of a building construction and real estate transaction between the parties which was consummated in Bay County and was originally evi*67denced by a promissory note made and signed in Bay County but which was later replaced by the substitute promissory note sued upon in this action.
We find this appeal to be without substantial merit so the challenged order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.3
JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. Greco, 320 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…davit which in pertinent part stated that he resided in Bro-ward County and that the note was payable in Broward County. The trial court denied the motion for change of venue citing Gorman v. Royal American Construction Company, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 66. If the contract out of which this suit arose were one other than upon an unsecured promissory note the trial court would have been correct in concluding that the venue as laid in Broward County was proper because payment was to be made in Broward…
Authorities Cited
- Papy v. The Munroe & Chambliss Nat'l Bank OF Ocala, 204 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)