SC10-868 – Willie Brown, Et Al v. Kim J. Nagelhout, Et Al.

State: Florida

Docket No: SC10-868

Case Date: 03/15/2012

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
_____________ No. SC10-868 _____________

WILLIE BROWN, et al., Petitioners, vs. KIM J. NAGELHOUT, et al., Respondents.

[March 15, 2012]

CANADY, C.J. In this case, we consider the provisions of Florida law governing the selection of venue based on the residency of defendants. Specifically, we address a limitation placed on the selection of venue --known as the joint residency rule-- derived from Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957), which held that the selection of venue based on residency was limited to the county of residence shared by the individual defendant and the corporate defendant.

We have for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Brown v. Nagelhout, 33 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which, based on the joint residency rule, affirmed the grant of a motion for a change of venue to the county of residence shared by the individual defendant and one corporate defendant where there was not a county of residence common to all three defendants. The Fourth Districts decision expressly and directly conflicts with Aladdin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jones, 687 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Reliable Electric Distribution Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. of Louisiana, Inc., 382 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Doonan v. Poole, 114 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), in which the First, Second, and Third District Courts of Appeal concluded that the joint residency rule was inapplicable to cases in which not all of the defendants shared a common county of residence. We have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC10-868 – Willie Brown, Et Al v. Kim J. Nagelhout, Et Al..pdf