D'Amato v. Feldman Printing Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D'Amato v. Feldman Printing Group, Inc.

519 So. 2d 742, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 377, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 482, 1988 WL 8133

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1768

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 519 So. 2d 742 (D'Amato v. Feldman Printing Group, 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

D'Amato v. Feldman Printing Group, Inc., 519 So. 2d 742, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 377, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 482, 1988 WL 8133 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an interlocutory order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue in a breach of contract action. We affirm the order under review based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the amended complaint alleges that the defendant breached a written contract between the parties by refusing to execute certain written documents. This refusal, according to evidence submitted below, took place on October 4, 1982, at a meeting with the plaintiff in Dade County, Florida. Second, the venue in this cause was, therefore, properly laid in Dade County, Florida under Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1985) because "the cause of action accrued” in Dade County where the defendant allegedly repudiated the contract between the parties. See Goodwin v. Figueroa, 407 So.2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Perry Bldg. Sys. v. Hayes & Bates, Inc., 361 So.2d 443, 444-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Al Stone Plumbing, Inc. v. Colonial Leasing Co. of New England, 254 So.2d 557, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., 191 So.2d 480, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). On this basis, the order under review is, in all respects,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an interlocutory order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue in a breach of contract action. We affirm the order under review based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the amended complaint alleges that the defendant breached a written contract between the parties by refusing to execute certain written documents. This refusal, according to evidence submitted below, took place on October 4, 1982, at a meeting with the plaintiff in Dade County, Florida. Second, the venue in this cause was, therefore, properly laid in Dade County, Florida under Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1985) because "the cause of action accrued” in Dade County where the defendant allegedly repudiated the contract between the parties. See Goodwin v. Figueroa, 407 So.2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Perry Bldg. Sys. v. Hayes & Bates, Inc., 361 So.2d 443, 444-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Al Stone Plumbing, Inc. v. Colonial Leasing Co. of New England, 254 So.2d 557, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., 191 So.2d 480, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). On this basis, the order under review is, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 742, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 377, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 482, 1988 WL 8133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damato-v-feldman-printing-group-inc-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack