5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
MAGIC WOK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Ligreen2 sentences2004The Third District determined that "if there are monies owed for shop drawings or the bond premium, they are not specified in the letter of intent and are `unliquidated and subject to proof,' thus rendering the debtor-creditor venue rule inapplicable." Id. (quoting Magic Wok Int'l, Inc. v. Li, 706 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); cf. Thomas, 791 So.2d 550 (applying the place of payment venue rule because the seller sought to recover earnest money deposits of $78,400 that the purchaser had failed to make pursuant to the parties' real estate contracts). 2003See Magic Wok Intern., Inc. v. Li, 706 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); American Fidelity Fire Ins. | 2 | 2 |
James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Companygreen2 sentences2009James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So.2d 487, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). 2009The gravamen of the so-called debtor-creditor venue rule “is that payment of the debt is the performance called for by the contract; and in such cases, the residence of the payee (i.e., the place of payment) is the place of the required performance, in default of which the cause of action therein accrues.” Id. at 489 . | 1 | 2 |
Precision Software, Inc. v. Gauthiergreen1 sentence2009See Precision Software, Inc. v. Gauthier, 605 So.2d 592, 593-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (explaining that the severance provision in Gauthier’s contract was a condition of his employment with Precision, rendering his cause of action one for breach of contract, not suit on a debt). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCarroll v. VAN DYK
neutral
1 sentence2011Significantly, this court, relying on Gauthier , also concluded that “the debtor-creditor venue rule” was “inapplicable” since the cause of action arose “in an employment context.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Thomas v. David Kilcoyne Real Estate Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004The Third District determined that "if there are monies owed for shop drawings or the bond premium, they are not specified in the letter of intent and are `unliquidated and subject to proof,' thus rendering the debtor-creditor venue rule inapplicable." Id. (quoting Magic Wok Int'l, Inc. v. Li, 706 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); cf. Thomas, 791 So.2d 550 (applying the place of payment venue rule because the seller sought to recover earnest money deposits of $78,400 that the purchaser had failed to make pursuant to the parties' real estate contracts). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
PDM Bridge Corp. v. JC Industrial Mfg.
green
1 sentence2004The Third District determined that "if there are monies owed for shop drawings or the bond premium, they are not specified in the letter of intent and are `unliquidated and subject to proof,' thus rendering the debtor-creditor venue rule inapplicable." Id. (quoting Magic Wok Int'l, Inc. v. Li, 706 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)); cf. Thomas, 791 So.2d 550 (applying the place of payment venue rule because the seller sought to recover earnest money deposits of $78,400 that the purchaser had failed to make pursuant to the parties' real estate contracts). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.