Girdley Const. v. Architectural Exteriors
This text of 517 So. 2d 137 (Girdley Const. v. Architectural Exteriors) 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.
Opinion
GIRDLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Seaboard Surety Company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIORS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
William E. Ruffier of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & Martinez, P.A., Orlando, for appellants/cross-appellees.
*138 Daniel J. Webster of Dunn, Smith & Withers, Daytona Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
This issue below was whether venue of one portion of an action by Architectural Exteriors, Inc. against Girdley Construction Co., Inc. should be transferred from Volusia County to Orange County based upon a contractual provision between the parties. In the instant case, such a transfer would result in multiple suits and a splitting of causes of action. Therefore, the provision should not be enforced. See Interval Marketing Associates, Inc. v. Sea Club Ass's IV, Ltd., 468 So.2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The timeliness of the motion was not challenged or considered below.
The order is reversed.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
517 So. 2d 137, 1987 WL 29160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girdley-const-v-architectural-exteriors-fladistctapp-1987.