Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assocs., Inc., 700 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assocs., Inc., 700 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc., No. 0:15-cv-62688 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 182 denying motion to transfer and noting that, in a supplementary proceeding, venue does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but remains with the court which entered the judgment2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. PCI Consultants, Inc., No. 0:15-cv-62688 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020).
    (denying motion to transfer and noting that, in a supplementary proceeding, venue does not shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but remains with the court which entered the judgment)
  • Hughes v. Wilkerson, 49 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).published
    See Kraft Foodservice, Inc. v. Thunder Boat Row & Assocs., Inc., 700 So.2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So.2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KRAFT FOODSERVICE, INC.
v.
THUNDER BOAT ROW & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Hooligans/Ft. Apache, Fort Apache Marina, Inc., and Juan Almeida
No. 97-0571.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct 15, 1997.
Published opinion
700 So. 2d 181
1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11566
1997 WL 640650
Steven J. Gutter of Kahn & Gutter, Plantation, for Appellant., David M. Goldstein of David M. Goldstein, P.A., Miami, for Appellee Thunder Boat Row & Associates, Inc.
Dell, Klein, Stone.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

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.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.