Vance v. Minton
Docket: 83-2295
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 13, 1984; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves James E. Vance, M.D. and Raymond Vance, P.A. (appellants) appealing a decision regarding venue after the voluntary dismissal of a co-defendant in a wrongful death action following the death of Marie V. Minton. The initial lawsuit was filed in Dade County against both Dr. Boruchow (a Dade County resident) and Dr. Vance (a Palm Beach County resident) under Florida Statutes § 47.021, which allows actions against co-defendants residing in different counties to be brought in any county where a defendant resides. After a settlement with Dr. Boruchow, Dr. Vance sought to transfer the case to Palm Beach County, arguing that § 47.011, which mandates that actions be brought only in the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action accrued, should apply now that the resident defendant had been dismissed. The trial court denied the transfer, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the initial venue was proper and remained unchanged despite the dismissal of Dr. Boruchow. The court cited that a bona fide belief in the cause of action against the resident defendant, along with good faith joinder and a reasonable claim of liability, were sufficient to retain venue. This decision aligns with the majority view from similar cases, establishing that the dismissal of a resident defendant does not necessitate a venue change if the case was initially filed in good faith against them. The case of Iseminger v. Morris, 249 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), influences the current matter by rejecting a claim for transfer of venue after a settlement with Volusia County defendants, asserting that the remaining Flagler County defendants were not entitled to such a transfer. The court noted concerns about the fairness of trials in Flagler County and highlighted that the statutory language regarding venue privileges applies only when an action is initiated. Unlike other states, Florida lacks provisions for post-commencement venue determinations when parties change. The court emphasized that allowing venue changes based on the dismissal of resident defendants could lead to chaos, undermining judicial efficiency. The appellants' concerns regarding potential abuse of the joinder privilege are addressed by enforcing a "good faith" condition. Additionally, issues of burden regarding actions against non-resident defendants can be addressed through a motion under the forum non conveniens statute. The court affirmed the decision, indicating that the presence of the P.A. in Palm Beach County does not affect the venue issue. The plaintiff’s claim regarding the cause of action's accrual in Dade County was deemed unnecessary to consider, as was the broader description of the Iseminger case in legal literature. The court also noted that the likelihood of transferring a case decreases as it progresses in the original forum.