EARL W. SHOMBER & CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA CASINO ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Shomber, a defendant in a breach of contract action involving an escrow agreement, appeals an order denying its motion to change venue from Dade County to Polk County. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that because the alleged breach occurred in Polk County where the escrowed funds were located, venue was improper in Dade County.
Venue was not properly laid in Dade County. Because a breach of escrow agreement is not an action to enforce payment on a debt and does not create a debtor-creditor relationship, the special venue rules for debt collection do not apply. The cause of action accrued in Polk County where the alleged breach occurred and where the escrowed funds were located, making Polk County the proper venue.
[1] A breach of an escrow agreement, where the defendant allegedly wrongfully withheld escrowed funds, accrues in the county where the escrow funds are located and the allege…
[2] Venue for a breach of contract action is proper in the county where the cause of action accrued.
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“A suit for breach of an escrow agreement, as here, is not a suit to enforce payment on a debt because an escrow agreement does not create a debtor-creditor relationship.”
Establishes the foundational distinction that escrow actions are not subject to special debt-collection venue rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShomber, a corporation with its principal place of business in Polk County, was sued by Florida Casino Associates, Inc., located in Dade County, for b…
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 Venue Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Earl W. Shomber & Co., Inc. [Shomber], the defendant in a breach of contract action involving an escrow agreement, appeals a non-final order denying its motion for change of venue to Polk County, Florida. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A).
Without dispute, the defendant Shomber has no office in Dade County for the transaction of its customary business, its principal place of business being located in Polk County, Florida. It is also undisputed that the property involved in this litigation, the escrowed funds, is located in Polk County, not Dade County, Florida. Under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1983), then, the venue was properly laid in Dade County only if the cause of action sued on “accrued” in Dade County, Florida. The instant suit is an action for breach of an escrow agreement wherein it is alleged that the defendant Shomber, located in Polk County, refused to transfer certain escrowed funds, upon demand, to the plaintiff Florida Casino Associates, Inc. [Florida Casino] which is located in Dade County, Florida.
A suit for breach of an escrow agreement, as here, is not a suit to enforce payment on a debt because an escrow agreement does not create a debtor-creditor relationship. Tomasello v. Murphy, 100 Fla. 132, 137-38, 129 So. 328, 330 (1930).
This being so, the special venue rules pertaining to suits to enforce payment on a debt are inapplicable here. See, e.g., Baruch v. W.B. Haggerty, Inc., 137 Fla. 799, 188 So. 797 (1939); Croker v. Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146 (1934); Crescent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First International Realty Investment Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976).
These rules are “only applicable when a debtor-creditor relationship exists between defendant and plaintiff and the promise sued on is for the payment of money.” James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
It is therefore clear that the action herein did not “accrue” in Dade County, Florida, as would be true in the case of an action to enforce payment on a debt, because the instant suit does not constitute such an action.
The gist of the cause of action sued upon is that the defendant Shomber wrongfully withheld and refused to transfer certain escrowed funds to the plaintiff Florida Casino in violation of the subject escrow agreement. If the defendant Shomber committed these wrongful acts, they were, without dispute, committed in Polk County, Florida, where the escrow funds are located. This being so, the breach of contract action sued upon “accrued” in Polk County, not Dade County, Florida, under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1983).
Goodwin v. Figueroa, 407 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co. v. Allied General Contractors, Inc., 365 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Macasphalt Corp. v. General Development Corp., 353 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., supra.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to transfer the venue of this cause to Polk County, Florida.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Precision Software, Inc. v. Gauthier, 605 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…nt cause of action arises in an employment context. See James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Clarke v. Cartee, 549 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Earl W. Shomber & Co. v. Florida Casino Associates, Inc., 469 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). [*594] Knowles, Clarke, and Shomber all hold that the debtor-creditor venue rules apply only when a debtor-creditor relationship exists between the parties and the promise sued on is the payment of money. In Knowles, this court s…
-
Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc. v. BOB Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…paid by a Dade County buyer. This court concluded that on the facts and legal theory there presented, venue was proper in Lee County, where the deposit was held. Id. at 1056 & n. 2; see also Earl W. Shomber & Co. v. Florida Casino Associates, Inc., 469 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (in suit for disbursement of escrow funds, venue is proper where escrow funds are located). The present case does not involve suit for return of a deposit or an escrow, but instead is a suit for money due under a contract. Th…
-
Clarke v. Cartee, 549 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…t case there is not a breach of an agreement to pay money, but instead, a failure to perform an act which would protect the appellees’ investment interest. As in the case advanced by appellant, Earl W. Shomber & Company v. Florida Casino Associates, 469 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), there did not exist a debtor/creditor relationship between the appellants and the appellees and thus the venue rules pertaining to suits to enforce payment on a debt are inapplicable. In Earl W. Shomber & Company, the defendant w…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Simmons v. State, 115 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1934)
- Jung H. Moon v. Ima-Park Place, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., Inc., 238 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Sailing W. Baruch v. W. B. Haggerty, Inc., 137 Fla. 799 (Fla. 1939)
- Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Tomasello v. Murphy, 100 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1930)
- Crescent Beach, Inc. v. Jarvis, 435 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied Gen. Contractors, Inc., 365 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- First Int'l Realty Inv. Corp. v. Cochran, 314 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- MacAsphalt Corp. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 353 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)