LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 

CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions
PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access
OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online
RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links


   
22 Fla. L. Weekly D2174c

HANSON-MURPHY, INC., et al., Appellants, vs. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Venue -- Torts -- Trial court properly ruled that claim for malicious prosection of civil action accrued in county in which the underlying action was filed, where at least some damages were sustained in that county, even though other injuries may have been subsequently incurred in another county -- Where none of present defendants reside in Dade County, there is no basis for fixing venue there

HANSON-MURPHY, INC., et al., Appellants, vs. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 97-1508. L.T. Case No. 96-2652. Opinion filed September 17, 1997. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Stuart M. Simons, Judge. Counsel: Steele & Hanson and Clifford Steele, for appellants. Mosley, Wallis & Whitehead and Alan P. Whitehead, for appellees.

(Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and SORONDO, JJ.)

(SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.) Because it is obvious that at least some damages were sustained in that county, we agree with the trial court that this claim for malicious prosecution of a civil action accrued for venue purposes in Orange County where that action was filed, see §§ 47.011, 47.051, Fla. Stat. (1995)1; 92 C.J.S. Venue § 19 n.35 (1955); 77 Am.Jur.2d Venue § 39 (1997); see Soowal v. Marden, 452 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); E.J. Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Southeast First Nat'l Bank, 415 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see generally Kumar v. Embassy Kosher Tours, Inc., 696 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Tucker v. Fianson, 484 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1986), even though other injuries may have been subsequently incurred in Dade County where the present plaintiffs, then-defendants, reside. See Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since none of the present defendants, then-plaintiffs, reside in Dade County, there is no basis for fixing venue here. The order under review transferring the instant case to Orange County is therefore

Affirmed.

-- -- -- --

1 47.011 Where actions may be begun. -- Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents. [e.s.]

47.051 Actions against corporations. -- Actions against domestic corporations shall be brought only in the county where such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. . . . [e.s.]

* * *