Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.A.

89 So. 3d 1138, 2012 WL 2226500, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9742

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-504

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 3d 1138 (Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.A.) 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

Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.A., 89 So. 3d 1138, 2012 WL 2226500, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9742 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this case, which involves an alleged breach of a services contract and related claims, is whether venue is proper in Leon County. We hold that it is not. Our review of the record establishes that the appellant law firms were required to perform their obligations under the contract in Duval County, Florida, and transmitted the letter repudiating the contract from Duval County, Florida. Thus, Duval County, Florida, is where the claimed causes of action accrued. See § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2012). We note that the relationship created between the parties was not that of debtor and creditor, and thus the venue rule by which appellee could summon appellant to answer in Leon County does not apply. See RMR Enters., Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Constr., Inc., 894 So.2d 1073, 1073-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Thus, contrary to the trial court’s ruling, venue is not proper in Leon County.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., and CLARK and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this case, which involves an alleged breach of a services contract and related claims, is whether venue is proper in Leon County. We hold that it is not. Our review of the record establishes that the appellant law firms were required to perform their obligations under the contract in Duval County, Florida, and transmitted the letter repudiating the contract from Duval County, Florida. Thus, Duval County, Florida, is where the claimed causes of action accrued. See § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2012). We note that the relationship created between the parties was not that of debtor and creditor, and thus the venue rule by which appellee could summon appellant to answer in Leon County does not apply. See RMR Enters., Inc. of S.W.F. v. T.B. Landmark Constr., Inc., 894 So.2d 1073, 1073-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Thus, contrary to the trial court’s ruling, venue is not proper in Leon County.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., and CLARK and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 1138, 2012 WL 2226500, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilner-hartley-metcalf-pa-v-howard-associates-attorneys-at-law-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack