Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat. Bank, 650 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat. Bank, 650 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we recognize that ordinarily an intervening party in an action takes the case as he or she finds it.... we conclude, however, that the rule is different where, as here, the intervenor is an indispensable party to , the action.”
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Let Miami Beach Decide v. City of Miami Beach (fladistctapp, 2013-09-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Let Miami Beach Decide v. City of Miami Beach
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we recognize that ordinarily an intervening party in an action takes the case as he or she finds it.... we conclude, however, that the rule is different where, as here, the intervenor is an indispensable party to , the action.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Triad Discount Buying Services, Inc. v. Special Data Processing Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Management Corp., 397 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla.1981); Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Florida, 650 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Fry
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Management Corp., 397 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla.1981); Fasco Indus., Inc. v. Goble, 678 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Al Packer, Inc. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 650 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Centex-Rodgers Constr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AL PACKER, INC. d/b/a Al Packer Ford, Appellant,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA and Gary Connor, Appellees.
94-2580.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 8, 1995.
650 So. 2d 165
Hubbart and Baskin and Levy.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*166] Arnstein & Lehr and Peter M. Feaman, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Kantor & Sapurstein and Bertram A. Sapurstein, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because (a) the appellant/intervenor Al Packer, Inc. [Packer] is clearly an indispensable party to the replevin action below, and (b) a replevin action, involving the same set of facts and the same parties as the replevin action below, was previously filed in the circuit court in Palm Beach County, we conclude that: (1) Packer, as an indispensable party, had standing to move to transfer the venue of the action below to the circuit court in Palm Beach County, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion.

We recognize that ordinarily an intervening party in an action takes the case as he or she finds it because the intervention is necessarily "in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230; see Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So.2d 718 (1946); Weiss v. Courshon, 618 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This means that an intervenor cannot, as a general rule, move to transfer the venue of an action. See Consolidated Gov't of Jacksonville v. Adams, 213 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 218 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1968). We conclude, however, that the rule is different where, as here, the intervenor is an indispensable party to the action. Under these circumstances, the intervenor occupies, in effect, the same status as the main parties to the action, and, accordingly, should have the same privileges, including the privilege of filing a motion for change of venue.

Beyond that, it is well settled that where, as here, there are two actions between the same parties pending in different judicial circuits, jurisdiction lies in the circuit where service of process was first perfected — here, the circuit court in Palm Beach County. Mabie v. Garden St. Management Corp., 397 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1981); Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So.2d 842 (1943); Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); compare Towers Constr. Co. of Panama City, Inc. v. Key West Polo Club Apts., Ltd., 569 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The final order under review denying Packer's motion for a change of venue is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the subject motion transferring the instant action to the circuit court in Palm Beach County.

Reversed and remanded.