Penaranda v. Mills

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Penaranda v. Mills

98 So. 3d 765, 2012 WL 4839007, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17814

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-2598

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 3d 765 (Penaranda v. Mills) 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

Penaranda v. Mills, 98 So. 3d 765, 2012 WL 4839007, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17814 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arturo Peñaranda and Kenneth Carter appeal from an order transferring their action against James Mills and Yolanda Mills from Seminole County to Duval County. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), and reverse the transfer order. The trial court transferred the case based solely upon a finding that this result was mandated by a forum selection clause in an agreement between the parties. As Appellees appear to concede on appeal, however, the clause in the agreement is merely a permissive clause in which the parties “consent” to venue in Duval County. Given the non-mandatory language in the contract, Appellants (as plaintiffs below), were not required to file suit in Duval County, see, e.g., Shoppes Ltd. P’ship v. Conn, 829 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and the trial court erred in transferring the ease to Duval County in reliance on the contract language. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Arturo Peñaranda and Kenneth Carter appeal from an order transferring their action against James Mills and Yolanda Mills from Seminole County to Duval County. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A), and reverse the transfer order. The trial court transferred the case based solely upon a finding that this result was mandated by a forum selection clause in an agreement between the parties. As Appellees appear to concede on appeal, however, the clause in the agreement is merely a permissive clause in which the parties “consent” to venue in Duval County. Given the non-mandatory language in the contract, Appellants (as plaintiffs below), were not required to file suit in Duval County, see, e.g., Shoppes Ltd. P’ship v. Conn, 829 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and the trial court erred in transferring the ease to Duval County in reliance on the contract language. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 3d 765, 2012 WL 4839007, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penaranda-v-mills-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack