Lesco, Inc. v. Celotex Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-778,84-778 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 691,464 So.2d 1336 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 691 LESCO, INC., Appellant, v. The CELOTEX CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael G. Williamson and Valerie A. Jahn of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Robert R. Vawter, Jr., of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
Lesco, Inc., defendant below, appeals a nonfinal order denying its motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A).
Lesco is a Florida corporation consisting of members of the Leslie family. Its only office for the transaction of business is in Seminole County, Florida. Lesco is a wholesale distributor for residential and commercial roofing products.
The Celotex Corporation, plaintiff below, is a Delaware corporation and subsidiary of the Jim Walters Corporation with its principal Florida office in Hillsborough County. Celotex manufactures and, for many years, has sold residential and commercial roofing products to Lesco.
In order to resolve a number of disputes arising out of their business relationship, Lesco, members of the Leslie family, and Celotex held a series of meetings in Hillsborough County. As a result, they executed an Agreement for Settlement and General Release on October 1, 1982. Paragraph 1 provided that Lesco would pay Celotex $100,000 and execute a promissory note for $140,000 with interest at 13.5% per annum, payable in equal installments for twenty-four months. In paragraph 2 Celotex agreed to supply Lesco on open account roofing products up to a $250,000 credit limit, subject to certain conditions. In paragraph 3 Celotex released the Leslie family, who owned Lesco, from "the obligations of their personal guarantees security (sic) any and all debts now or hereafter due and owing Celotex by Lesco." Finally, in paragraph 4, Lesco and Celotex mutually released each other from all claims and debts accruing up to the date of the agreement except as otherwise set forth.
In June 1983 Lesco filed suit against Celotex in Seminole County to quiet title to real property located in that county. In its amended complaint filed in January 1984, Lesco also sought to recover damages from Celotex for failing to satisfy a mortgage that Lesco had executed on the property in favor of Celotex before the settlement agreement. Lesco contended the agreement discharged this mortgage. In February 1984 Celotex counterclaimed for amounts due and owing on the $250,000 credit line extended to Lesco, recovery of possession of roofing products delivered to Lesco, foreclosure of a security interest in those roofing products, and foreclosure of the mortgage on the Seminole real property.
In December 1983, before the filing of Lesco's amended complaint and Celotex's answer thereon, Celotex filed a complaint in Hillsborough County against Lesco on the $140,000 promissory note executed by Lesco. Celotex did not assert that the note was secured by the Seminole County real property. Lesco filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue of this suit to Seminole County. The trial court denied this motion on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MANAGEMENT COMPUTER v. PERRY CONST.
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (noting that an order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue is appealable); accord Lesco, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 464 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). This rule enables a party to seek review of an adverse decision on venue before that party is forced to litigate t......
-
Schwarb v. Gamma Graphics, Inc., 89-02323
...for cross-appellant. PER CURIAM. We reverse the order transferring venue from Polk County to Broward County. See Lesco, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 464 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The cross-appeal having become moot, it is Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN......
-
Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Chambers Truss, Inc.
...should be transferred where it will avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results. Lesco, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 464 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In addition, a change of venue is intended to prevent a miscarriage of justice in the correct venue or to afford a mor......