Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Goldsmith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Goldsmith

866 So. 2d 779, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 2004 WL 385039

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 779 (Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Goldsmith) 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

Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 866 So. 2d 779, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 2004 WL 385039 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

Goldsmith sued Mercedes Homes seeking in Count I, specific performance of a contract for sale of real property, and in Count II, damages for breach of contract as an alternative to specific performance. Mercedes moved to transfer venue under a' venue provision in the contract. The trial court denied the motion because the property was located in the county in which the complaint was filed, and the jurisdictional authority of the court over the property existed only in that county. Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 684 So.2d 181 (Fla.1996).

Mercedes argues that venue should not be governed by the principle of Ruth, which is known as the local action rule, because Mercedes sold the property to a bona fide purchaser before the lawsuit was filed and Goldsmith, accordingly, cannot obtain specific performance. That contention is premature. Because the specific performance claim is still pending, we affirm, but without prejudice to Mercedes again raising venue in the event Goldsmith’s claim is limited to monetary relief.

MAY, J., and HOROWITZ, ALFRED J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

Goldsmith sued Mercedes Homes seeking in Count I, specific performance of a contract for sale of real property, and in Count II, damages for breach of contract as an alternative to specific performance. Mercedes moved to transfer venue under a' venue provision in the contract. The trial court denied the motion because the property was located in the county in which the complaint was filed, and the jurisdictional authority of the court over the property existed only in that county. Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 684 So.2d 181 (Fla.1996).

Mercedes argues that venue should not be governed by the principle of Ruth, which is known as the local action rule, because Mercedes sold the property to a bona fide purchaser before the lawsuit was filed and Goldsmith, accordingly, cannot obtain specific performance. That contention is premature. Because the specific performance claim is still pending, we affirm, but without prejudice to Mercedes again raising venue in the event Goldsmith’s claim is limited to monetary relief.

MAY, J., and HOROWITZ, ALFRED J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 779, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 2004 WL 385039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercedes-homes-inc-v-goldsmith-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack