Breen v. Huntley Jiffy Stores, Inc.

610 So. 2d 29, 1992 WL 361331
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 25, 1992
Docket92-00170
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 29 (Breen v. Huntley Jiffy Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Breen v. Huntley Jiffy Stores, Inc., 610 So. 2d 29, 1992 WL 361331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

610 So.2d 29 (1992)

John and Sharon BREEN, Appellants,
v.
HUNTLEY JIFFY STORES, INC. and Southern Bell Telephone Co., Appellees.

No. 92-00170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 25, 1992.

*30 David Solomon, Clearwater, for appellants Breen.

J.A. Setchel of Law Offices of J.A. Setchel, Tampa, for appellee Jiffy Stores.

Stephen B. Sambol of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett & Hurt, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Southern Bell.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court should not have transferred the venue of their negligence action from Hillsborough County to Duval County. They maintain that appellees, Southern Bell and Jiffy Stores, failed to meet their burden to have the action transferred. We reluctantly agree.

Venue here was transferred under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989), which allows a court to transfer the venue of a cause for the convenience of the parties or in the interests of justice. Although the statute does not require affidavits or sworn proof to effect a change of venue, this court has consistently required defendants to produce affidavits or other sworn proof in order to overcome a plaintiff's venue choice. Westshore Glass Corp. v. Hack Ind., Inc., 522 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Davis v. Florida Power Corp., 492 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Assocs., 338 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The record here, submitted in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220, contains no such affidavits or sworn proof. Appellants' complaint is unsworn, as are appellees' motions to change venue. In view of the fact that venue is proper in Hillsborough County (since both appellees have agents in Hillsborough County), despite the obvious inconvenience to the witnesses, we are compelled to reverse. We do so, however, without prejudice to appellees to properly readdress the issue of venue in the trial court.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FLA. HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER v. Elsenheimer
952 So. 2d 575 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Bond v. Bond
842 So. 2d 1031 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
The Florida Bar v. Solomon
711 So. 2d 1141 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burns
672 So. 2d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Dalomba-Herrera v. Bush
645 So. 2d 117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
610 So. 2d 29, 1992 WL 361331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breen-v-huntley-jiffy-stores-inc-fladistctapp-1992.