From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hancock v. Crippen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1984
457 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Summary

affirming a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue because the defendant's supporting affidavit did not sufficiently contest the claim that venue was proper under the statute, thus, the defendant never carried the initial burden

Summary of this case from Kustom US, Inc. v. Herry, LLC

Opinion

No. 84-1704.

October 16, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert P. Kaye, J.

Parkhurst Carlson and Grafton N. Carlson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Quinton, Lummus, Dunwody Adams and Kenneth J. Carusello, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


Hancock is a resident of Volusia County who was joined as a co-defendant with two Florida corporations in a Dade County lawsuit arising out of causes of action which accrued in Broward County. He appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss for improper venue. We affirm because the appellant did not demonstrate that the co-defendants were not "residents" of Dade County within the meaning of Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1983). While Hancock's affidavit stated that each corporation had its "principal place of business" and did business "primarily" in Broward County, it did not negate the significantly different statutory requirement of the existence in Dade County of "an office for the transaction of its customary business." [e.s.] See Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc., 115 So.2d 170 (Fla.1st DCA 1959). Hence, as in Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo, 390 So.2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), the appellant failed to carry his burden of establishing that venue was improper under Section 47.021, Florida Statutes (1983):

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, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.

Actions against defendants residing in different counties. — Actions against two or more defendants residing in different counties may be brought in any county in which any defendant resides.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hancock v. Crippen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1984
457 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

affirming a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue because the defendant's supporting affidavit did not sufficiently contest the claim that venue was proper under the statute, thus, the defendant never carried the initial burden

Summary of this case from Kustom US, Inc. v. Herry, LLC
Case details for

Hancock v. Crippen

Case Details

Full title:ROSS HANCOCK, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT, v. FRANK CRIPPEN AND DOROTHY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 16, 1984

Citations

457 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Kustom US, Inc. v. Herry, LLC

That established, a plaintiff's burden to affirmatively prove venue does not arise where a defendant has not…