Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Goldsmith
Citations: 866 So. 2d 779; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705; 2004 WL 385039Docket: No. 4D03-2007
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 2, 2004; Florida; State Appellate Court
Goldsmith initiated a lawsuit against Mercedes Homes, seeking specific performance of a real estate sales contract in Count I and, alternatively, damages for breach of contract in Count II. Mercedes Homes filed a motion to transfer the venue based on a provision in the contract. The trial court denied this motion, citing that the property's location was within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint was filed, adhering to the local action rule established in Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs. Mercedes contended that the local action rule should not apply since the property was sold to a bona fide purchaser before the lawsuit commenced, arguing that this precluded Goldsmith from seeking specific performance. The court found this argument premature, as the specific performance claim remains unresolved. The ruling is affirmed, allowing Mercedes to raise the venue issue again if Goldsmith’s claim shifts solely to monetary relief. Judges MAY and HOROWITZ concurred.