Reliable Elec. Distribution Co., Inc. v. Walter E. Heller and Co. of Louisiana, Inc., SS-437

• Decision Date: 16 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. SS-437,SS-437
• Citation: 382 So.2d 1287
• Parties: RELIABLE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. WALTER E. HELLER AND COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1287

382 So.2d 1287

RELIABLE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. WALTER E. HELLER AND COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, INC., Appellee.

No. SS-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 16, 1980.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1980.

Louis F. Ray, Jr., Pensacola, for appellant.

Jeffrey C. Bassett of Barron, Redding, Boggs, Hughes & Fite, and Franklin R. Harrison, Panama City, for appellee.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the trial court denying the motion of defendant, Reliable Electrical Distribution Company, Inc. (REDCO), for change of venue. The facts are that REDCO, a Florida corporation, and Carl J. Acton and Walter B. McCain signed accounts financing security agreements whereby they guaranteed the payment of any debts of Panama Electrical Distributors, Inc. (Panama) owed to Walter E. Heller and Company (Heller), a Louisiana corporation. Thereafter, Panama, a Bay County corporation, defaulted; and that company is now in bankruptcy.

Suit was brought in Bay County against REDCO, Acton and McCain on the three guarantee agreements. Motion to transfer that portion of the action represented by Count I ¹ of the complaint was made on the grounds that REDCO had no office in Bay County; that no cause of action accrued in Bay County and no property in litigation is located there. There is no contention that the individual defendants are not residents of and properly sued in Bay County. The record shows that the guarantee agreement which is the basis of Count I of the complaint was executed August 22, 1974, in Bay County, in the name "Reliable Electrical Distribution Company of Panama City, Inc." On appeal to this court, however, REDCO's affidavit that it has no office in Bay County is uncontested. REDCO further points out that the agreement provides for payments to be made at REDCO's office.

Appellant REDCO contends that it is entitled to be sued in Escambia County under Florida Statutes, § 47.051, which provides:

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

Appellee, on the other hand, contends that venue is controlled by Florida Statutes, § 47.021, which provides as follows

"Actions against two or more defendants residing in different counties or districts may be brought in any county or district in which any defendant resides."

The question is whether the right of a corporate defendant to be sued in the county where it does business controls over the right of the plaintiff in a suit against two or more defendants residing in different counties or districts to bring suit in any county or district in which any defendant resides under § 47.021. This...