EDWARD J. GERRITS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHAMBERS TRUSS, 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.
Gerrits sought to transfer venue in a breach of contract action from St. Lucie County to Palm Beach County to consolidate with a related case and avoid inconsistent results. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, finding an abuse of discretion where consolidation in the more convenient venue would serve justice.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for change of venue. The court should have transferred venue to Palm Beach County to avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results regarding who caused the damage to the trusses.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for change of venue when such a transfer would avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent resu…
[2] A change of venue is appropriate to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to afford a more convenient venue.
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“In the interest of justice, venue should be transferred where it will avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a change of venue to prevent inconsistent outcomes in related cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChambers Truss, a St. Lucie County manufacturer, contracted with Gerrits to supply roof trusses for a Palm Beach County construction project. Chambers…
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 Piecemeal Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. (Ger-rits) claims that the trial court should have granted its motion for change of venue. We agree.
Appellee Chambers Truss, Inc. (Chambers), a St. Lucie County manufacturer, contracted with Gerrits to supply roof trusses for a construction project in Palm Beach County. Later, Chambers sued Gerrits in St. Lucie County for nonpayment and Gerrits counterclaimed that the trusses were defective and their installation caused additional expenses. Gerrits did not appeal a denial of its motion for change of venue to Palm Beach County.1 A subcontractor then sued Gerrits in Palm Beach County for nonpayment of the additional expenses to install damaged trusses. Gerrits again moved for a change of venue in Chambers’s case in order to consolidate the cases in Palm Beach County as the more convenient venue and to avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results. The trial judge denied the second motion without explanation.
Our standard of review is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Gerrits’s second motion for change of venue. See Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We find that an abuse of discretion did occur. In the interest of justice, venue 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 more convenient venue. Trawick, Fla.Prac. and Proc., § 5-8, 5-9 (1987).
A basis for venue did exist in Palm Beach County. Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1987) states, “Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” Delivery of the trusses and their installation took place in Palm Beach County where Gerrits maintained its principal place of business.
More importantly, all the parties concede the trusses were damaged so the possibility of inconsistent results exists because both lawsuits involve who caused the damage. In one case the blame could be placed on Chambers as the manufacturer and in the other case on the subcontractor as the installer. In the interest of justice, both cases should be tried in Palm Beach County.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . We assume appellant recognized that a basis existed for venue in St. Lucie County. The contract did not specify the place of payment although payments had been made in Palm Beach County. But, since the payments eventually went to appellee’s plant in St. Lucie County that is where the nonpayment breach occurred. See Borkson, Simon & Moskowitz, P.A. v. Troutman, 534 So. 2d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The RED Carpet Corp. OF Panama City Beach v. Se. Banking Corp., 580 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…to the Dade County action does not make a difference; the parties do not need to be the same to warrant the change of venue. See Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1981); accord Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Chambers Truss, Inc., 564 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Krombach, 496 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).…
-
Resolution Tr. Corp. for City Sav. Bank v. Diaz, 578 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…Stat. Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by transferring venue in the interest of justice to avoid piecemeal litigation and the possibility of inconsistent results. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Chambers Truss, Inc., 564 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The limiting phrase of section 47.-122 which provides that the court can transfer to any other court in which the action “might have been brought” should b…
Authorities Cited
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Borkson, Simon & Moskowitz, P.A. v. Troutman, 534 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Lesco, Inc. v. The Celotex Corp., 464 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)