Cohen v. Scarnato

Decision Date10 April 2019
Docket NumberNo. 4D18-3654,4D18-3654
Citation270 So.3d 410
Parties Maria S. COHEN f/k/a Maria Richter, Individually and as Successor Co-Trustee and Lisa Berman, Individually and as Successor Co-Trustee, Appellants, v. Gabriel SCARNATO and Portia M. Rindosh n/k/a Portia M. Riccio, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Casey W. Mills of Casey W. Mills, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Gabriel Scarnato, Palm Coast, pro se.

Per Curiam.

In this non-final appeal, we review an order transferring two consolidated trust disputes from Broward County to Flagler County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2018). We reverse for two reasons: first, because there was insufficient evidence that a change of venue was necessary, and second, because the trial court failed to consider whether Flagler County was a proper venue for the trust cases.

In 1992, Portia Rindosh executed a will and revocable trust in Broward County. She appointed herself as trustee and named her son, daughter, and granddaughter as beneficiaries under the trust. She later resigned as trustee, at which time her daughter and granddaughter became successor co-trustees under the terms of the trust.

The trust disputes began in 2016, after Portia amended the trust to terminate her daughter and granddaughter as co-trustees and name her son as the sole beneficiary of the trust. The daughter and granddaughter filed a complaint against Portia and her son in Broward County, seeking a declaratory judgment that Portia lacked the capacity to amend the trust.

Consequently, Portia filed a separate complaint against her daughter and granddaughter alleging that they had mismanaged the trust. The two complaints were consolidated.

While the trust disputes were pending in Broward County, Portia executed a new will and trust in Flagler County. She expressly revoked the 1992 trust and thereby excluded her daughter and granddaughter as beneficiaries. Portia died a few months later, and her son filed a petition for administration of the new will in Flagler County. The daughter and granddaughter objected to this petition and deposited the 1992 will in Broward County. Neither will has been admitted to probate.

Thereafter, the son moved to transfer the Broward County trust disputes to Flagler County. The trial court recognized that Broward County was a proper venue for the trust disputes but decided that they should be transferred "in the interest of justice and judicial economy" because Flagler County was the only proper venue for the administration of Portia's estate. The daughter and granddaughter appealed.

Section 47.122 provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." The party seeking a transfer under this section must submit affidavits or other evidence to show that a change of venue is necessary for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. See Cardelles v. Catholic Health Servs., Inc. , 14 So.3d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Even after this showing is made, a court may transfer venue only to a court where the action could have been filed initially. See McGee v. McGee , 145 So.3d 955, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; Vitale v. Vitale , 994 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

We generally review an order transferring venue under section 47.122 for an abuse of discretion. See Vitale , 994 So.2d at 1243 ; Weinberg v. Weinberg , 936 So.2d 707, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). But "where there are no disputed facts and the venue order turns on a question of law," our review is de novo. Weinberg , 936 So.2d at 708.

Here, the trial court erred in transferring the trust disputes to Flagler County because there was insufficient evidence presented to show that a change of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Agosto 2022
    ...we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in transferring venue for the convenience of the witnesses. See Cohen v. Scarnato , 270 So. 3d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (providing that an order transferring venue under section 47.122 is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion). ......
  • At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 Agosto 2022
    ...... we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in. transferring venue for the convenience of the witnesses. See Cohen v. Scarnato, 270 So.3d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th. DCA 2019) (providing that an order transferring venue under. section 47.122 is generally ......
  • DNS Auto Glass Shop, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 3 Febrero 2023
    ...... abuse its discretion in granting Appellee's motion to. transfer venue. See Cohen v. Scarnato, 270 So.3d. 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (applying the abuse of. discretion standard of review to a trial court's order. ......
  • Hahn v. Hahn
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 Abril 2019

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT