Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 92-01243
| Decision Date | 17 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-01243,92-01243 |
| Citation | 608 So.2d 923 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2602 Karen P. CAMERON a/k/a Karen Parker, Appellant, v. SMITH NEW COURT, INC., a Foreign corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn and John J. Agliano, Tampa, for appellant.
Jan Michael Morris, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.
The defendant, Karen P. Cameron, appeals from an order denying her motion to dismiss and from an agreed corrected order denying her motion to transfer for improper venue. We reverse and remand for a hearing.
Smith New Court, Inc. filed suit against Karen P. Cameron and her former husband, Michael C. Cameron, on a promissory note executed on February 12, 1988. The upper right hand corner of the note contains the words "Miami, Florida." Next to the signature lines at the bottom of the note is the Camerons', the makers', address, 301 Polmer Park, Palm Beach, Florida.
Smith New Court alleges that Michael executed the promissory note in Dade County. However, Karen alleges that she and her husband signed the note in Palm Beach County. As the note indicates, the Camerons resided in Palm Beach, Florida at that time. Karen filed a motion to transfer for improper venue. It is undisputed that Karen resided in either Palm Beach or Hillsborough County at all times material to the underlying action. It is also undisputed that Karen resided in Hillsborough County and that Michael resided in Orange County when this action was filed and served.
The trial court denied the motion to transfer for improper venue. On May 12, 1992, the trial court entered an order erroneously titled order denying motion to dismiss. On May 24, 1992, the trial court entered a corrected order denying her motion to transfer for improper venue. Karen appealed.
We are not prepared to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Karen's motion to transfer for improper venue. See Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). However, the trial court should have deferred ruling on Karen's motion to transfer for improper venue until an evidentiary hearing was held to determine in which county the underlying promissory note was executed by Michael. See Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Industries, Inc., 896 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th Cir.1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. State, 90-2912
... ... No. 90-2912 ... District Court of Appeal of Florida, ... Third District ... Oct. 5, 1994 ... Carson, 280 So.2d 426, 430 (Fla.1973); Smith v. State, 237 So.2d 139, 140 (Fla.1970); State ex ... ...
-
Kinetiks. Com, Inc. v. Sweeney, 1D00-5015.
...the trial court did err in denying appellants the ability to file defenses to the new venue allegations. See Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(trial court should have deferred ruling on defendant's motion to transfer for improper venue until an evidenti......
-
Department of Management v. Fastrac Const. Inc.
...Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. A trial court may defer ruling on a venue motion pending a hearing. Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). A trial court may also order discovery necessary for a determination of the proper venue. See id.; cf., Gleneagle Shi......
-
Bravo v. Rodriguez, 95-2640
...F.2d 1352 (11th Cir.1990); Proctor v. Commercial Bank of Okeechobee, 373 So.2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). As in Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we are not prepared at this time to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to tran......