RICHARD M. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
R. O. HICKMAN ET AL., 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 court held that venue was proper in Pinellas County because the contract was made, services performed, and payments were to be made there, establishing the accrual of the cause of action in that county.
[1] Venue for an action against an individual defendant may be established in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property…
[2] Where a contract involves the payment of money and no place of payment is expressly agreed upon, payment may be implied to be due where the payee resides or has an establ…
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 intelligencePlaintiff architect sued defendants for unpaid fees under a contract for architectural services. Defendants moved to transfer venue from Pinellas Coun…
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 Place Of Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case appellant Richard M. Jones appeals interlocutorily to this Court from an order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court after hearing of a motion to abate and to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue, resulting in the transferring of the cause to the Sarasota County Circuit Court.
Appellant Jones, a resident of Pinellas County, filed suit in the Pinellas County Circuit Court for sums allegedly due him under a contract with Hickman, Overman and Conrad for preparation of architectural and engineering drawings and specifications for a seven story hi-rise condominium apartment building known as “San Marco Apartments” at a specified location in Venice, Florida. By mutual consent Hickman acted for and on behalf of himself, Overman and Conrad. The contract was signed by Jones as the architect and by Hickman “of Pinellas Construction Company Incorporated” as the owner. Jones completed all of his professional services as agreed under the contract. By the terms of the agreement the owners were obligated to pay the sum of $25,500.-00 for Jones’ services. They paid $21,000.-00, leaving a balance due and owing, according to Jones’ suit, of $4,500.00 which Hickman and his associates failed or refused to pay.
Hickman filed answer denying the indebtedness and affirmatively alleged that he had been granted a discharge in bankruptcy before institution of the suit. Overman and Conrad filed motion to abate and to dismiss the suit because of improper venue, contending that they were residents of and had their place of business in Sarasota County, that Hickman’s trustee in bankruptcy was a resident of Hillsborough County, that the contract was to be performed in Sarasota County, and that the site of the proposed “San Marco Apartments” was in Sarasota County. Jones established by affidavit that he was a resident of Pinellas County; that the contract was made and entered into in Pinellas County; that the architectural services were actually performed in Pinellas County; and that payments were to be made and had been made to him in Pinellas County.
Upon hearing of the motion to abate and to dismiss, the Court ordered the cause of action transferred to the Sarasota County Circuit Court, and it is from this order that Jones comes here by interlocutory appeal. The sole point at issue before us is as to proper venue of the action.
Jones argues here that the proper venue was Pinellas County where he filed the suit, relying upon B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Company, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 790, construing the two Florida statutes on the subject, F.S. §§ 47.011 and 47.051 F.S.A. We agree and reverse.
§ 47.011 inter alia applies to individual defendants, and is as follows:
“§ 47.011 Where actions may be begun
*277Actions shall be brought only in the county . . . where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”
§ 47.051, applicable to corporate defendants, is inter alia as follows:
“§ 47.051 Actions against corporations
Actions against domestic corporations shall be brought only in the county . . where such corporation has or usually keeps an office for transaction of its customary business, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”
In Wesley this 2nd District Court said:
“ ‘Place of performance’ as used in determining the place where the cause of action accrues in questions of venue under Fla.Stat. §§ 47.041 and 47.051, F.S. A., is something of a phrase of art, and like all such phrases it can have multiple meanings, depending on the circumstances of the case in which it is applied.”
Quoting from M. A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 99, 101, Wesley proceeds:
“[Wjhere a contract involves the payment of money and no place of payment is expressly agreed on, it may be implied that payment is to be made where the payee resides or has an established place of business, and where payment under the contract may be made. Where there is an express promise to pay, and no place of payment is stipulated, the debtor should seek the creditor unless otherwise provided or agreed. In such cases the cause of action accrues where the default occurred, though it be in the county where the plaintiff resides, and the action may be maintained in such county for the defendant’s breach.”
Accord: Maloney v. Fleishaker, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 496, and James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 487.
The contract involved in the case sub judice was entered into in Pinellas County, the services for which Jones was to be paid were actually performed in Pinellas County, the payments upon the contract were made to him in Pinellas County, and at least one of the defendants, Hickman, was a resident of Pinellas County.
It follows, based upon the authorities aforesaid, all from this Court, that the interlocutory order appealed, holding improper venue in Pinellas County and transferring the cause of action to the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, must be and is—
Reversed and the cause remanded to the lower Court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Int'l Realty Inv. Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…., Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 99; B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Company, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 790; Lakeport Water Association, Inc. v. David B. Smith Engineers, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 588; Jones v. Hickman, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 275; Merrill Stevens Yachts, Inc. v. Irwin Yacht and Marine Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 230. The contract involved in the case sub judice was executed in Dade County and the payments thereupon were to be made to the plaintiff corporation at i…
-
Sheffield Steel Prods., Inc. v. Powell Bros., Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…79). . § 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1979). . American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied General Contractors, Inc., 365 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Serv., Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Jones v. Hickman, 263 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Co., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). .Bassett v. Talquin Elec. Coop., Inc., 362 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).…
-
Merrill Stevens Yachts, Inc. v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 276 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…nellas County. We think that the action should be allowed to proceed in Dade County. For the reasons stated the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. . Jones v. Hickman, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 275; Lakeport Water Assoc., Inc. v. David B. Smith Engineers, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 588; B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Const. Co., Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 790; M. A. Kite Company v. A. C. Samford, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 99.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- M. A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., Inc., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Hof's Printing & Rubber Stamp Shop, Inc. v. United States Leasing Corp., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- B & F OF Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Constr. Co., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Maloney v. Fleishaker, 238 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)