FLORIDA FORMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BARKETT COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Florida Forms sued Barkett Computer Services for payment for services rendered, filing in Orange County Circuit Court. The trial court transferred venue to Dade County based on the defendant's motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that venue properly lay in Orange County because the implied place of payment under the debt collection rule was where the creditor (plaintiff) was located.
Venue properly lay in Orange County. Under Florida Statute § 47.051, when a suit is for recovery of money owed and there is no agreement regarding the place of payment, the implied place of payment is where the payee (plaintiff) resides or has an established place of business. Since Florida Forms had its principal place of business in Orange County and no agreed place of payment was established, venue was proper in Orange County.
[1] A plaintiff's election of venue is generally respected, and the burden rests on the defendant to prove that venue is improper.
[2] For actions against domestic corporations, venue is proper in the county where the corporation has an office for business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the…
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“The election of venue is with the plaintiff. Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So. 708.”
Establishes the foundational principle that plaintiff chooses initial venue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Forms, a Florida corporation with principal place of business in Orange County, sued Barkett Computer Services, a Florida corporation with pri…
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 Implied Place Of Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County, Florida, filed in the Orange County Circuit Court a three count suit against appellee, a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is in Dade County. Count I sought the recovery of $7,634.39 for services rendered to appellee “in the preparation of forms, according to the accounts” attached to the complaint. Counts II and III involved the same transactions but were based upon an account stated and quantum meruit, respectively. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss or for a change of venue. The trial court thereafter ordered the cause transferred to Dade County. That order is the subject of this appeal.
The election of venue is with the plaintiff. Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So. 708. It is of the very nature of venue that the plaintiff selects it initially but that he need not plead or prove that his selection has been proper. The burden of pleading and proving that venue is improper is upon the defendant. And so it appears that if a defendant wishes to have the action transferred from the place where the plaintiff has filed the action, the defendant must show either (a) that venue will not lie in that place (see B & F of Clearwater, Inc., v. Wesley Construction Co., Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 790) or (b) that venue should be changed for some good reason under one or more of the sections of Chapter 47, F.S. 1973.
The immediate question we must decide is whether venue properly lies in Orange County.
Section 47.051, F.S. 1973, provides, among other things, that “[ajctions 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, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” Appellee alleged in its motion that its principal place of business is Dade County, that all the sales involved were made by appellant’s representative in Dade County, and that delivery to appellee was made in Dade County.
However, this suit is for recovery of money owed, and appellee failed to show that the agreed place of payment was in Dade County. In the absence of an agreement as to the place of payment it is implied that payment is to be made where the payee resides or has an established place of business. Croker v. Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146 (1934); M.
A. Kite Company v.
A. C. Samford, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 99; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 191 So. 2d 480; Gorham Construction Company v. Superior Fertilizer & Chemical Company, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 516; B & F of Clearwater, Inc., v. Wesley Construction Co., supra. In the present case there was no agreement as to the place of payment; therefore by operation of the foregoing rule, the place for payment was appellant’s principal place of business, Orange County.
Thus, on this record the venue of the cause is properly in Orange County. Since this is so and since appellee has not demonstrated any reason for transferring the cause to Dade County, we re-' verse the order appealed from and remand the cause with directions to reinstate it in the Circuit Court of Orange County.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…den can only be satisfied by pleading and proving facts before the trial court which will defeat the venue as laid. Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, 136 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Florida Forms, Inc., v. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In the instant case, it is clear that the plaintiffs complaint fails to affirmatively reveal any venue defects. The complaint alleges a breach of a contract debt committed by the contract debtor wherein the parties did not expr…
-
Magee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 366 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…s. The allegations of the unsworn motion to dismiss or to transfer were never established by sworn proof before the trial court. We reverse. Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, 243 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). REVERSED. DOWNEY, C. J., and BERANEK, J., concur.…
-
Carlson-Southeast Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ell settled that venue is the plaintiff’s prerogative. Perry Building Systems, Inc. v. Hayes & Bates, Inc., 361 So. 2d at 444; Itel-Pas, Inc. v. Jones, 389 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Florida Forms, Inc. v. Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). When venue is proper in more than one county, the plaintiff may choose the county in which to file the action. Itel-Pas, Inc., 389 So. 2d at 1086. The plaintiff’s decision regarding venue is presumptively correct, and the p…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 115 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1934)
- Jung H. Moon v. Ima-Park Place, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- M. A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., 191 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- 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)
- Puerto RICO Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Lauderdale Leasing Corp., 218 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)