E. J. Sales & Service, Inc. v. Southeast First National Bank of Miami
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tucker v. Fianson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Jose Ramon Montenegro v. Antonio Socorro (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)
- Omega Insurance Company v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- John Hall Elec. Contr. v. Allstate Const. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Merkin v. PCA Health Plans of Florida, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Loiaconi v. Gulf Stream Seafood, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Hanson-Murphy, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
- Rea v. Compactor-Baler Service, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
- Envases Venezolanos, SA v. Collazo (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
- Lapuma v. King Building Systems, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Soowal v. Marden (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- Bryn Mawr Ocean Resorts, Inc. v. Key Largo Ocean Resorts Co-Op, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
- Deerfield Import-Export, Inc. v. Newton (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
- EJ Sales & Serv. Inc. v. SE FIRST NATL. BANK (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Alleging that E. J. Sales & Service, Inc., a Florida corporation, had taken possession
Since E. J. Sales’ place of business is in Orange County, and it has no office whatever here, venue may properly be laid in Dade County under Sec. 47.051, Fla.Stat. (1979)
The bank relies on cases which hold that an action for breach of an agreement to make payment accrues where payment is due, that is, in the absence of a contrary provision, in the county where the payee resides. E.g., Engineered Storage Systems, Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 82—489, opinion filed, June 15, 1982) and cases cited; American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Allied General Contractors, Inc., 365 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). These authorities have no application to this situation in which the parties had no contractual relationship with each other at all and the defendant is alleged only to have failed to perform an implied duty to return funds to which it was allegedly not entitled. See American International Food Corp. v. Lesko, supra.
For these reasons, the order below is reversed with directions that the cause be transferred to Orange County.
Reversed.
. Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A).
. Notwithstanding the trial judge’s misplaced reliance on Sec. 47.101, Fla.Stat. (1979), Section 47.051 alone controls the issues in this case. It provides:
Actions against corporations. — 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. Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located, [e.s.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.