McFadden v. Wolfman & Greenfield, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McFadden v. Wolfman & Greenfield, P.A.

616 So. 2d 500, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2502, 1993 WL 66316

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2001

StatusPublished

This text of 616 So. 2d 500 (McFadden v. Wolfman & Greenfield, P.A.) 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

McFadden v. Wolfman & Greenfield, P.A., 616 So. 2d 500, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2502, 1993 WL 66316 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the appeal of a non-final order transferring the case from Orange County to Brevard County on the basis of improper venue. Although there may be some merit in appellant’s contention that transfer was improper because appellee did not establish that appellant’s cause of action for legal malpractice did not accrue in Orange County, we cannot entertain reversal. The hearing on the motion to transfer for improper venue was not reported and we are unable to ascertain what transpired there. A hearing on venue is (or can be) an eviden-tiary hearing. See, e.g., Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Without a record of that proceeding to review, we are unable to conclude the lower court erred in its implicit conclusion that none of appel[501]*501lant’s causes of action accrued in Orange County.

AFFIRMED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the appeal of a non-final order transferring the case from Orange County to Brevard County on the basis of improper venue. Although there may be some merit in appellant’s contention that transfer was improper because appellee did not establish that appellant’s cause of action for legal malpractice did not accrue in Orange County, we cannot entertain reversal. The hearing on the motion to transfer for improper venue was not reported and we are unable to ascertain what transpired there. A hearing on venue is (or can be) an eviden-tiary hearing. See, e.g., Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Without a record of that proceeding to review, we are unable to conclude the lower court erred in its implicit conclusion that none of appel[501]*501lant’s causes of action accrued in Orange County.

AFFIRMED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 500, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2502, 1993 WL 66316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-wolfman-greenfield-pa-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack