Tietig v. Riccio

451 So. 2d 1016, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13888
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1984
DocketNo. 84-310
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 451 So. 2d 1016 (Tietig v. Riccio) 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
Tietig v. Riccio, 451 So. 2d 1016, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because plaintiffs suit seeks primarily foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien on real property, even though damages are sought as an alternative remedy, the action should have been brought in Brevard County where the property is situated. See Georgia Casualty Co. v. O’Donnell, 109 Fla. 290, 147 So. 267 (1933); Sales v. Berzin, 212 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (a suit to foreclose mortgage is local, and must be brought in county where land lies, even though other relief, such as deficiency judgment, may be granted).

Reversed with instructions to transfer venue or dismiss.

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

Related

SAAD Homes, Inc. v. Rivero
23 So. 3d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Haws & Garrett v. Panhandle Custom Decorators
500 So. 2d 204 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Meka Construction Corp. v. Village Mall of Port Orange, Ltd.
469 So. 2d 838 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 So. 2d 1016, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tietig-v-riccio-fladistctapp-1984.