FIRST INTERNATIONAL REALTY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST NATIONAL REALTY INVESTMENT CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. COCHRAN, 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.
First International Realty Investment Corporation appealed the trial court's order transferring a venue from Dade County to Brevard County in a debt collection action. The appellate court reversed, holding that when a contract fails to specify a payment location, venue properly lies in the county where the creditor maintains its principal place of business.
Dade County is the proper venue because when a contract for services does not specify the place of payment, it is implied that payments are to be made at the creditor's principal place of business. Therefore, regardless of where the defendant resides or where the subject matter is located, venue lies in the county where the plaintiff corporation maintains its principal place of business.
[1] A cause of action for payment for services rendered under a contract is properly brought in the county where the plaintiff has its principal place of business, if the con…
[2] When a contract for services does not specify the place of payment, it is implied that payment is to be made at the plaintiff's principal place of business.
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“a cause of action brought by a corporation or an individual to recover a stated sum of money owed the plaintiff by the defendant for services rendered in accordance with the terms of the written contract which failed to specify the place where the payments were to be made, properly is brought in the county where the plaintiff has its (or his) principle place of business, as it is implied that the payments were to be made in such county.”
Establishes the governing legal rule for venue in debt collection cases when payment location is not specified in the contract.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst International Realty Investment Corporation, a Dade County mortgage broker, entered into a written agreement with Robert L. Cochran on June 5, 1…
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.
[*215] PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff takes this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order transferring this action to Brevard County.
First International Realty Investment Corporation, a mortgage broker, is a Florida corporation licensed to do business in Dade County, Florida. On June 5, 1973 this corporation entered into a written agreement with Robert L. Cochran whereby the corporation was designated as the exclusive agent for Cochran in securing a loan commitment for a project known as Beach Winds Tower Condominium Apartments located in Indialantic, Brevard County, Florida. In August of that year, First International secured a loan commitment which was signed and accepted by Robert Cochran. Thereafter, statements of account from First International’s Dade County office were sent to Mr. Cochran who failed to make any payment thereon. The corporation then instituted the present action in Dade County to recover the monies due under the June S, 1973 contract. In response thereto, the defendant Cochran filed a motion to dismiss and an alternate motion to transfer the cause of action to Brevard County on the grounds of improper venue. Attached thereto was the affidavit of Cochran who alleged therein that (1) he was a resident of Brevard County; (2) he has no office or residence in Dade County nor has he conducted any of the business transactions giving rise to this litigation in Dade County; (3) the mortgage loan commitment was to be furnished to him in Brevard County; and (4) plaintiff, First International Realty Investment Corporation, failed to deliver a commitment acceptable to him in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
After hearing oral argument thereon, the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss and then entered an order directing that the cause of action be transferred to Bre-vard County. Plaintiff corporation appeals therefrom. We reverse. -
The following rule which firmly is established in Florida is dispositive of the question presented in this appeal. Whether either or both parties to a cause of action are individuals or corporations, domestic or foreign, and regardless of where the contract was consummated or where other provisions of the contract were performed, a cause of action brought by a corporation or an individual to recover a stated sum of money owed the plaintiff by the defendant for services rendered in accordance with the terms of the written contract which failed to specify the place where the payments were to be made, properly is brought in the county where the plaintiff has its (or his) principle place of business, as it is implied that the payments were to be made in such county. See Saf-T-Clean, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation, Fla.1967, 197 So. 2d 8; M. A. Kite Company v. A. C. Samford, Inc., 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 its Dade County office as reflected by the statements sent to the defendant.
Upon the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons cited hereinabove, we are of the view that Dade County is the proper venüe for the maintenance of the cause of action alleged in the complaint in the case at bar and hereby reverse the herein appealed order transferring the action to Brevard County and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ord, 130 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., 191 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Co., 237 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); First International Realty Investment Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The defendant has the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper in a lawsuit, assuming that the plaintiff’s complaint does not affirmatively show that the venue is lacking. This burden can only be satisfied by pl…
-
Crescent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…2d 8 (Fla.1967); Baruch v. W.B. Haggerty, Inc., 137 Fla. 799, 188 So. 797 (1939); Excel Ins. Co. v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First International Realty Invest. Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), review den. 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1976); Gorham Constr. Co. v. Superior Fertilizer and Chemical Co., 218 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). . See Pearson v. Wallace Aviation, Inc., 400 So. 2d 50, 51 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Motsinge…
-
Earl W. Shomber & Co., Inc. v. Fla. Casino Assocs., Inc., 469 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…188 So. 797 (1939); Croker v. Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146 (1934); Crescent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First International Realty Investment Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976). These rules are “only applicable when a debtor-creditor relationship exists between defendant and plaintiff and the promise sued on is for the payment of money.” James A. Knowles, Inc. v. I…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Saf-T-Clean, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 197 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1967)
- 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)
- Jones v. Hickman, 263 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Brown v. State, 257 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Lakeport Water Ass'n, Inc. v. David B. Smith Eng'rs, Inc., 257 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Merrill Stevens Yachts, Inc. v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 276 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)