Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)
- Hughes v. Wilkerson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
- State, Department of Insurance v. Accelerated Benefits Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
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
Appellant obtained a judgment against Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc., but was unable to collect payment. Appellant then filed supplementary proceedings against the other appellees, who moved to transfer venue to Dade County. Appellee Almeida alleged that he was a resident of Dade County, and Appellee Fort Apache Marina, Inc. alleged that it was a corporation with its principal place of business in Dade County and that it had no office and did no business in Palm Beach County. The trial court granted the motion to transfer; however, we reverse.
In Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court explained that in supplementary proceedings under section 56.29, Florida Statutes that: “venue in the case does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction during such proceeding, but remains with the court which entered the judgment.” As the court noted, section 56.29(2) provides that defendants in supplementary proceedings are to be examined, concerning their property, in the county of their residence. Thus, while venue cannot be transferred, defendants in supplementary proceedings are entitled to be examined in the county of their residence. Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We therefore reverse the order transferring venue.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.