Hastings v. General Electric Credit Auto Lease, Inc.

434 So. 2d 1020, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21674
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 21, 1983
DocketNo. 82-1524
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 434 So. 2d 1020 (Hastings v. General Electric Credit Auto Lease, 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
Hastings v. General Electric Credit Auto Lease, Inc., 434 So. 2d 1020, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

This case involves venue of a suit on a guaranty agreement.

Appellant, as guarantor, executed an agreement guaranteeing to appellee, as lessor, payment and performance of the indebtedness and obligations of the lessee under an open end motor vehicle leasing agreement. The guaranty agreement contained no clause governing the venue of any action on the guaranty agreement but it did provide that it was to be interpreted under New York law. The underlying automobile leasing agreement provided that it would be construed under Illinois law and that venue on any action thereunder or related thereto would be in Cook County, Illinois, or such other venue selected by the lessor having jurisdiction over the parties. Appellant, a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, was sued in Marion County, Florida, by appellee on the guaranty agreement and appeals an order denying his motion for change of venue.

The venue provision in the underlying automobile lease is not an obligation or indebtedness which was guaranteed by appellant. We have been referred to no provision of New York law to the effect that venue on an action on a guaranty agreement is governed by a venue provision in the agreement guaranteed. Because this action is on the guaranty agreement and not on the automobile leasing agreement and there is no contract provision relating to venue on the guaranty agreement, the general venue statute, section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1981), applies. That statute provides that “actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” No property is involved in this action. Appellant’s affidavit that the cause of action did not accrue in Marion County, Florida, while conclusory, is uncontradicted. Appellee presented no facts demonstrating that the cause of action for breach of the guaranty agreement accrued in Marion County, Florida. Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss or for a change of venue is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that this cause be transferred to the county where the defendant resides.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

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

Related

Chapman v. Sovran Construction Co.
709 So. 2d 616 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Cason v. Florida Favorite Fertilizer, Inc.
547 So. 2d 703 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 So. 2d 1020, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hastings-v-general-electric-credit-auto-lease-inc-fladistctapp-1983.