Hancock v. Crippen

457 So. 2d 591, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2210, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15565
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 1984·No. No. 84-1704·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

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).1 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.lst 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 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.

Footnotes

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

Hancock v. Crippen, 457 So. 2d 591, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2210, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15565 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

457 So. 2d 591 (Hancock v. Crippen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tribune Co. v. Approved Personnel, Inc.
115 So. 2d 170 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Birdsall Shipping, S.A. v. Gallardo
390 So. 2d 437 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)