WYNN E. WALTERS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF HEALTH, RESPONDENT
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.
Wynn Walters petitioned for certiorari to challenge a circuit court order transferring venue of his administrative review proceeding from Volusia County to Leon County. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the Volusia County Circuit Court had proper jurisdiction and venue over Walters' challenge to the Division of Health's revocation of his hearing aid dealer certificate, and quashed the transfer order.
The court held that the Volusia County Circuit Court had proper jurisdiction and venue under Florida Statute 468.133 to review the revocation order, and that the subsequent recording of Walters' certificate of registration cured any initial venue deficiency. The order transferring venue to Leon County was quashed.
[1] Venue and jurisdiction are distinct legal concepts, with venue pertaining to the location of a court and jurisdiction referring to its power to adjudicate.
[2] A circuit court has jurisdiction to review administrative orders concerning the suspension or revocation of certificates of registration in the county of the registrant's…
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 question presented in this case is not one of jurisdiction but of venue; the distinction between which, apparently, was not understood by respondent or the trial court.”
Establishes the court's primary concern that the lower court confused venue and jurisdiction, which are distinct legal concepts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 11, 1975, Walters sought review in Volusia County Circuit Court of a Division of Health order revoking his hearing aid dealer certificate. Se…
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 Certificate Of Registration cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
By petition for writ of certiorari, Walters challenges an order of the Circuit Court of Volusia County transferring venue of this administrative proceeding to the Circuit Court for Leon County.
On March 11, 1975, petitioner sought review in the Circuit Court of Volusia County of an order of the Division of Health revoking petitioner’s certificate of registration as a licensed hearing aid dealer. Seven days later, petitioner recorded the certificate of registration in the Circuit Court Clerk’s office in Volusia County. Super-sedeas was granted petitioner by the Vol-usia County Circuit Court. Various and sundry motions were filed by each party which were entertained and ruled upon by the Volusia County Circuit Court. On May 9, 1975, respondent filed an interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Volusia County to this court. Numerous motions and depositions were filed in the Volusia County Circuit Court while the interlocutory appeal was pending in this court. On July 14, 1975, this court filed its opinion dismissing the interlocutory appeal on the ground that an interlocutory appeal was not available from a judgment of a circuit court exercising appellate jurisdiction.1 On August 15, 1975, respondent filed a Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction for Writ of Certi-orari to Proper Court. On September 2, 1975, the Circuit Court of Volusia County entered an order providing:
“This cause came on to be heard upon the Respondent’s motion to transfer the jurisdiction for writ of certiorari to proper court dated August 13, 1975 [filed August 15, 1975] ....
“WHEREFORE it is the order of this court that Respondent’s motion to transfer jurisdiction for writ of certiorari to proper court is hereby granted ...” (emphasis supplied)
The question presented in this case is not one of jurisdiction but of venue; the distinction between which, apparently, was not understood by respondent or the trial court.2 ' Venue is one thing; jurisdiction is another. They are not synonymous. Venue concerns “the privilege of being accountable to a Court in a particular location”. Jurisdiction is “the power to act”, the authority to adjudicate the subject matter.3 Florida Statute 468.133 (1973) entitled “Review of orders of the division by the circuit courts; procedure and venue [emphasis supplied]”, subsection (1) provided:
“The final order of the division in proceedings for the suspension or revocation of certificates of registration shall be subject to review by the Circuit Court of Leon County, or the county wherein the registrant has recorded his certification of registration and has his principal place of business, or of the county wherein the books and records of the division are kept.” 4
Thus, jurisdiction to review respondent’s orders for suspension or revocation of certificates of registration was vested in one of three circuit courts: 1) the Circuit Court of Leon County, 2) the circuit court for the county wherein respondent here kept its books and records, or 3) the circuit court for the county wherein petitioner here had recorded his certificate of registration and had his principal place of business.
It is uncontradicted that petitioner had his principal place of business in Volusia County and that petitioner did record his certificate of registration seven days after seeking appellate review of respondent’s order. Jurisdiction for such review by the Volusia County Circuit Court was statutorily provided. Proper venue for such appellate review was dependent upon a factual basis. Respondent having not in itially challenged venue, the subsequent recording of the certificate of registration by petitioner cured the deficiency of venue in the Circuit Court of Volusia County.
Certiorari is granted. The order transferring venue to Leon County is quashed.
MILLS, J., concurs.
SMITH, J., specially concurs.
. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Division of Health v. Walters, 315 So. 2d 494 (1 Fla.App.1975).
. McGowin v, McGowin, 122 Fla. 394, 165 So. 274 (1936).
. Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504 (2 Fla.App.1967).
.The Division of Health was abolished and its functions transferred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 1, 1975. See § 3(3), ch. 75-48, Laws of Florida.
SMITH, Judge
(concurring):
I agree to the court’s judgment restoring this case to the Circuit Court of Volusia County for disposition. I would not, however, predicate the decision on a theory that respondent’s “Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction for Writ of Certiorari to Proper Court” was ineffective to raise the venue question. Rather, I would give respondent’s motion full effect for that purpose and hold, nevertheless, that the statutory requirement for recording petitioner’s certificate in the county of his principal place of business could be satisfied during the course of litigation, whenever recordation became necessary to save petitioner’s subt stantial right to litigate at home.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valle v. Mador, 478 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…tled to the rights and privileges enjoyed by all Florida residents and may defend this action in Lee County. Appellants appear to have confused jurisdiction and venue. See Walters v. State of Florida, Department of Health & Rehabilitation Services, 332 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Stewart v. Carr, 218 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Service of process [*418] establishes jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant and, by informing the defendant of pending litigation, signals him to defend hi…
-
In re Jane DOE 07-B, 973 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…They are not synonymous. Venue concerns ‘the privilege of being accountable to a Court in a particular location.’ Jurisdiction is ‘the power to act,’ the authority to adjudicate the subject matter.” Walters v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 332 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). “The general venue statute controls all actions brought under the common law or pursuant to a statute not containing specific provisions concerning venue....” Lane v. Hemophilia of the Sunshine State, Inc., 793 So. 2d 992,…
-
Womancare of Orlando, Inc. v. Agwunobi, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (N.D. Fla. 2005)…ature out-of-state minors from having abortions in Indiana”). It is axiomatic, moreover, that Florida’s venue provisions neither confer nor eliminate a court’s jurisdiction. Walters v. State of Florida, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitation Servs., 332 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (explaining that “[v]enue is one thing; jurisdiction is another”). Indeed, Plaintiffs do not maintain that Florida courts lack jurisdiction over non-residents who wish to petition for a judicial bypass; nor has this court found a…
Authorities Cited
- Broward Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- McGowin v. McGowin, 122 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1936)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wynn E. Walters, 315 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)