Tinwood, N.V. v. Figueredo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tinwood, N.V. v. Figueredo

523 So. 2d 179, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 867, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1334, 1988 WL 28310

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1988

DocketNos. 88-227, 88-283

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 179 (Tinwood, N.V. v. Figueredo) 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

Tinwood, N.V. v. Figueredo, 523 So. 2d 179, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 867, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1334, 1988 WL 28310 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tinwood, N.V., a co-defendant below, appeals from an order transferring a cross-claim it brought against co-defendants, Figueredo and others, to the Orange County Circuit Court. We reverse on the authority of the rule established in Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld v. Sachs, 404 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. Zelikoff, 303 So.2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and McCue v. Lane, 228 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), that a trial court simply lacks the authority, whether on grounds of convenience or otherwise, to excise and transfer only a portion of a pending action to another jurisdiction. We do not agree with the appellees that the applicability of this principle is affected by the court’s prior transfer of another completely severable third party action by Tin-wood against others who, by definition, were not original parties.

We caution that this decision does not pass upon the substantive or procedural propriety of the cross-claim itself. Furthermore, it does not concern a transfer of the entire case to Orange County under the forum non conveniens doctrine, § 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1987), although it may be said that such a transfer seems eminently appropriate under the circumstances.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tinwood, N.V., a co-defendant below, appeals from an order transferring a cross-claim it brought against co-defendants, Figueredo and others, to the Orange County Circuit Court. We reverse on the authority of the rule established in Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld v. Sachs, 404 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. Zelikoff, 303 So.2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and McCue v. Lane, 228 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), that a trial court simply lacks the authority, whether on grounds of convenience or otherwise, to excise and transfer only a portion of a pending action to another jurisdiction. We do not agree with the appellees that the applicability of this principle is affected by the court’s prior transfer of another completely severable third party action by Tin-wood against others who, by definition, were not original parties.

We caution that this decision does not pass upon the substantive or procedural propriety of the cross-claim itself. Furthermore, it does not concern a transfer of the entire case to Orange County under the forum non conveniens doctrine, § 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1987), although it may be said that such a transfer seems eminently appropriate under the circumstances.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 179, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 867, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1334, 1988 WL 28310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinwood-nv-v-figueredo-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack