PALM BEACH COUNTY
v.
FLORIDA PACE FUNDING AGENCY
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.
Palm Beach County appeals a dismissal order based on improper venue, which transferred the case from Palm Beach County to Sarasota County based on Florida PACE Funding Agency's home venue privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the home venue privilege and sword-wielder exception but remanded for consideration of a venue selection clause in a terminated Interlocal Agreement.
The court affirmed that FPFA, as a Florida governmental defendant, is entitled to claim the home venue privilege and the sword-wielder exception does not apply. However, the court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the venue selection clause in the terminated Interlocal Agreement is applicable and potentially dispositive of the proper venue.
[1] Governmental defendants in Florida are generally entitled to be sued in the county where their headquarters are located, absent waiver or exception.
[2] The "sword-wielder" exception to the home venue privilege does not apply in disputes solely between governmental parties.
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“FPFA proved that it is a Florida governmental defendant entitled to claim the home venue privilege. See Fla. PACE Funding Agency v. Pinellas County, 385 So. 3d 631, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (explaining that, absent waiver or exception, governmental defendants in Florida are entitled to be sued in the county where their headquarters are located).”
Establishes the court's holding that governmental defendants have home venue privilege in their headquarters county absent waiver or exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Beach County filed suit against Florida PACE Funding Agency (FPFA), a Florida governmental entity with headquarters in Sarasota County. The parti…
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 Sword-Wielder Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
PALM BEACH COUNTY,
Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA PACE FUNDING AGENCY,
Appellee.
No. 4D2023-3141
[November 6, 2024]
Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502023CA009882XXXXMB.
Helene C. Hvizd, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Marianna R. Sarkisyan and Thomas E. Jablonski, Assistant County Attorneys, Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Amber S. Nunnally and Elise M. Engle of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, and James C. Dinkins, CivForge Law, PA, Orlando, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Palm Beach County appeals an order granting Florida PACE Funding Agency’s (“FPFA’s”) motion to dismiss the County’s complaint for improper venue and transferring the case to Sarasota County pursuant to FPFA’s common law home venue privilege. The County contends that the order on review should be reversed because (1) FPFA cannot claim the home venue privilege, (2) the “sword-wielder” exception defeats that privilege, or (3) the venue selection clause contained in the parties’ since-terminated Interlocal Agreement applies, making venue proper in Palm Beach County. Although the County raised all three issues below, the lower court did not rule on the applicability of the venue selection clause. Rather, the lower court determined that FPFA is entitled to claim the home venue privilege and the sword-wielder exception does not apply in this case.
We affirm on the issues reached by the trial court. On this record, FPFA proved that it is a Florida governmental defendant entitled to claim the
2
home venue privilege. See Fla. PACE Funding Agency v. Pinellas County, 385 So. 3d 631, 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (explaining that, absent waiver or exception, governmental defendants in Florida are entitled to be sued in the county where their headquarters are located). Further, the County’s claims do not invoke the “sword-wielder” exception to FPFA’s venue privilege. See id. at 638 (holding the sword-wielder doctrine could not be invoked in what was “essentially a showdown between two governmental parties.”).
However, the venue selection clause is potentially dispositive to the appropriate venue in this case, and the trial court did not reach that issue below. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to determine the applicability of the venue selection clause in the first instance. See Baker v. Econ. Rsch. Servs., Inc., 242 So. 3d 450, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (remanding for the trial court to decide in the first instance whether a forum selection clause covered multiple claims raised in the complaint); Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 285, 289 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Akers v. City of Miami Beach, 745 So. 2d 532, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)) (explaining that appellate courts should ordinarily refrain from deciding issues not ruled on by the trial court). In remanding the venue selection clause issue for further consideration, we express no view on the merits of the parties’ respective positions.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stark v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 95 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 745 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Baker v. Econ. Research Servs., Inc., 242 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Fla. Pace Funding Agency v. Pinellas Cnty. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)