Tietig v. Riccio

451 So. 2d 1016, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13888
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 19, 1984·No. No. 84-310·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

451 So. 2d 1016 (Tietig v. Riccio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)