Stabler v. Ford Werke AG

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stabler v. Ford Werke AG

581 So. 2d 632, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5353, 1991 WL 98031

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 632 (Stabler v. Ford Werke AG) 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

Stabler v. Ford Werke AG, 581 So. 2d 632, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5353, 1991 WL 98031 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order transferring the underlying action to Martin County, Florida. The motion to transfer filed by appellee, Ford, was unsworn. The affidavit filed in support of the motion was based upon hearsay which, itself, was stale and outdated. There was no sworn testimony taken at the hearing on the motion. Thus, there was not substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion in acting on the motion. This constitutes an inappropriate use of discretion. See Hickman v. Sacino, 566 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

We therefore reverse, and, as in Gallagher v. Smith, 517 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), remand to permit the lower court to consider such proper evidence as may be presented by the parties as to the most convenient forum for the trial of this case. The convenience of the witnesses has been described as the single most important factor under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989). Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order transferring the underlying action to Martin County, Florida. The motion to transfer filed by appellee, Ford, was unsworn. The affidavit filed in support of the motion was based upon hearsay which, itself, was stale and outdated. There was no sworn testimony taken at the hearing on the motion. Thus, there was not substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion in acting on the motion. This constitutes an inappropriate use of discretion. See Hickman v. Sacino, 566 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

We therefore reverse, and, as in Gallagher v. Smith, 517 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), remand to permit the lower court to consider such proper evidence as may be presented by the parties as to the most convenient forum for the trial of this case. The convenience of the witnesses has been described as the single most important factor under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989). Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 632, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5353, 1991 WL 98031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stabler-v-ford-werke-ag-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack