Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc.

700 So. 2d 181, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11566, 1997 WL 640650

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1997

DocketNo. 97-0571

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 700 So. 2d 181 (Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Associates, 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

Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., 700 So. 2d 181, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11566, 1997 WL 640650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant obtained a judgment against Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., but was unable to collect payment. Appellant then filed supplementary proceedings against the other appellees, who moved to transfer venue to Dade County. Appellee Almeida alleged that he was a resident of Dade County, and Appellee Fort Apache Marina, Inc. alleged that it was a corporation with its principal place of business in Dade County and that it had no office and did no business in Palm Beach County. The trial court granted the motion to transfer; however, we reverse.

In Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court explained that in supplementary proceedings under section 56.29, Florida Statutes that: “venue in the case does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment.” As the court noted, section 56.29(2) provides that defendants in supplementary proceedings are to be examined, concerning their property, in the county of their residence. Thus, while venue cannot be transferred, defendants in supplementary proceedings are entitled to be examined in the county of their residence. Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We therefore reverse the order transferring venue.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant obtained a judgment against Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., but was unable to collect payment. Appellant then filed supplementary proceedings against the other appellees, who moved to transfer venue to Dade County. Appellee Almeida alleged that he was a resident of Dade County, and Appellee Fort Apache Marina, Inc. alleged that it was a corporation with its principal place of business in Dade County and that it had no office and did no business in Palm Beach County. The trial court granted the motion to transfer; however, we reverse.

In Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court explained that in supplementary proceedings under section 56.29, Florida Statutes that: “venue in the case does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment.” As the court noted, section 56.29(2) provides that defendants in supplementary proceedings are to be examined, concerning their property, in the county of their residence. Thus, while venue cannot be transferred, defendants in supplementary proceedings are entitled to be examined in the county of their residence. Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We therefore reverse the order transferring venue.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 181, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11566, 1997 WL 640650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraft-foodservice-inc-v-thunder-boat-row-associates-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack