RMR Enterprises, Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Construction, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

RMR Enterprises, Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Construction, Inc.

894 So. 2d 1073, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1988, 2005 WL 414851

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-4246

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 894 So. 2d 1073 (RMR Enterprises, Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Construction, 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

RMR Enterprises, Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Construction, Inc., 894 So. 2d 1073, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1988, 2005 WL 414851 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the cause of action in this case arose in Lee County, Florida, the location where appel-lee was required by contract to make monthly lease payments to appellant in exchange for the lease of a commercial [1074]*1074premises. No exception, to the general venue rule provided by section 47.051, Florida Statutes (2004), applies in this case because the lease created no debtor or creditor relationship whereby appellee/les-see, a resident of Duval County, could summon appellant/lessor, a Lee County resident, to answer in Duval County. See PDM Bridge Corp. v. JC Indus. Mfg., 851 So.2d 289, 291-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that the special venue rule does not “apply in the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship flowing from an express contractual promise to pay a certain sum of money”); Clarke v. Cartee, 549 So.2d 722, 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (noting that the debtor/creditor rule is inapplicable where the suit is “not based on a promise to pay a certain sum of money owed, but a suit for the breach of contract and tort to recover unliquidated damages”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, C. J., KAHN, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the cause of action in this case arose in Lee County, Florida, the location where appel-lee was required by contract to make monthly lease payments to appellant in exchange for the lease of a commercial [1074]*1074premises. No exception, to the general venue rule provided by section 47.051, Florida Statutes (2004), applies in this case because the lease created no debtor or creditor relationship whereby appellee/les-see, a resident of Duval County, could summon appellant/lessor, a Lee County resident, to answer in Duval County. See PDM Bridge Corp. v. JC Indus. Mfg., 851 So.2d 289, 291-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding that the special venue rule does not “apply in the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship flowing from an express contractual promise to pay a certain sum of money”); Clarke v. Cartee, 549 So.2d 722, 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (noting that the debtor/creditor rule is inapplicable where the suit is “not based on a promise to pay a certain sum of money owed, but a suit for the breach of contract and tort to recover unliquidated damages”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, C. J., KAHN, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

894 So. 2d 1073, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1988, 2005 WL 414851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rmr-enterprises-inc-of-swf-v-tb-landmark-construction-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack