THOMAS HARDELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NABERS & CRANE, A DIVISION OF BAYLY, MARTIN & FRY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Hardell & Associates, an employment agency based in Broward County, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to change venue in a negligence action filed by Nabers & Crane in Pinellas County. The appellate court reversed, holding that venue was improper because the cause of action accrued where the services (background investigation) were to be performed—in Broward County, where appellant's office was located.
Venue is improper in Pinellas County and lies only in Broward County. For a service contract, the cause of action accrues where the services are to be performed—here, at appellant's Broward County office where the background investigation would have been conducted. The location where the plaintiff suffered the benefits or consequences of the contract is not determinative.
[1] An action against a domestic corporation must be brought in the county where the corporation has an office for the transaction of its customary business, where the cause…
[2] For a service contract, the cause of action accrues where the services are to be performed.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.”
Statutory foundation for venue requirement under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHardell & Associates is an employment agency with its principal place of business in Ft. Lauderdale (Broward County). In late 1978, Hardell and Nabers…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accrual Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Thomas Hardell & Associates, Inc., defendant below, takes this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying its motion for change of venue. We reverse.
Appellant is an employment agency specializing in the recruiting and placement of executives with insurance companies and agencies. Its principal and only place of business is in Ft. Lauderdale (Broward County).
During the latter part of 1978, appellant and appellee Nabers & Crane entered into negotiations regarding the placement of an account executive with appellee, which ultimately resulted in the placement of Robert N. Gower with appellee; and appellee sent appellant a check for the agreed amount for appellant’s services.
Appellee subsequently filed a complaint against appellant in Pinellas County alleging that after Gower came to work for appellee he exhibited a series of problems which Nabers considered indicative of mental illness rendering him unfit for employment; that appellant had represented that it conducted background investigations on all applicants; and that in failing to conduct a background investigation on Gower appellant breached its agreement with appellee and was also negligent in checking Gower’s background. Appellant filed a motion for transfer for improper venue, together with an affidavit by appellant’s president in support of the motion. Appel-lee filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion executed by its president averring that appellant and appellee were in repeated contact by telephone and letter and that appellee suffered damages in Pinellas County. The trial court denied appellant’s motion. This appeal followed timely.
Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1977) provides in pertinent part:
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.
Since the location of property is not involved in this case, and since appellant’s principal place of business is in Broward County, the issue is whether the cause of action accrued in Broward County.
In James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), this court held that as regards a service contract the cause of action accrues where the services are to be performed. In the instant case, an investigation of Gower’s background would necessarily have been conducted at appellant’s office in Bro-ward County. The mere fact that eventually the benefits of the contract would be enjoyed by appellee in its county of residence is not decisive. Id.; American International Food Corp. v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Thus the cause of action here clearly accrued in Broward County, and venue lies only in Broward County.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for change of venue is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to enter an order granting the motion.
OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Windsor v. Crescent A. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…or earned under the contract; rather, appellee alleges breach of a covenant to promote his invention. This cause of action accrued in Orange County, where the services were to be performed. Thomas Hardell & Associates, Inc. v. Nabers & Crane, etc., 382 So. 2d 439 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). No cause of action accrued in Volusia County merely because payments were properly made there. American International Food Corp. v. Lesko; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). If appell…
-
ST. Laurent v. Resort Mktg. Assocs., Inc., 399 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…pellant continues to reside, the sole issue on this appeal is where the cause of action accrued. As regards a service contract, the cause of action accrues where the services are to be performed. Thomas Hardell & Associates, Inc. v. Nabers & Crane, 382 So. 2d 439, 440 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). Since all [*364] sales efforts were performed in Monroe County and the actual sales took place there, we agree with appellant that the services…
-
Ryan v. Mobile Commc'ns Enters., Inc., 594 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…then, is the rule that a cause of action on a service contract accrues where the services are to be performed. St. Laurent v. Resort Marketing Associates, Inc., 399 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Thomas Hardell & Associates, Inc. v. Nabers & Crane, 382 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). [*846] Although MCE is correct to characterize the underlying contract as one for services, the important consideration for venue purposes is the b…
Authorities Cited
- James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., Inc., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- State v. McCORMICK, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Am. Int'l Food Corp. v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)