Hewitt v. Russo & Graham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hewitt v. Russo & Graham

745 So. 2d 497, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15590, 1999 WL 1049493

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1533

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 745 So. 2d 497 (Hewitt v. Russo & Graham) 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

Hewitt v. Russo & Graham, 745 So. 2d 497, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15590, 1999 WL 1049493 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Although this suit involves a contract for legal services, the breach alleged was not of the service covenant, but rather was of the covenant to pay money for services rendered. Since the contract did not specify a place for payment, the general rule applies that the money was payable at the creditor’s residence, which in this case was Escambia County. See Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Bob Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, because Escam-bia County was a proper venue selection.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Although this suit involves a contract for legal services, the breach alleged was not of the service covenant, but rather was of the covenant to pay money for services rendered. Since the contract did not specify a place for payment, the general rule applies that the money was payable at the creditor’s residence, which in this case was Escambia County. See Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Bob Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, because Escam-bia County was a proper venue selection.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 497, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15590, 1999 WL 1049493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-russo-graham-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack