Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Spector v. Old Town Key West Development, Ltd. (fladistctapp, 1990-10-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Spector v. Old Town Key West Development, Ltd.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Singer v. Tobin, 201 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 209 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1968); Baum v. Corn, 167 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). [2] The appellees' reliance upon State, Bd. of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile R.R., 15 Fla. 201, 284 (1875) for the contrary proposition that a circuit court may not appoint a receiver of property located outside its boundaries, is completely misplaced.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Royal v. Parado
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also Jutagir v. Marlin, et al., 453 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
James R. JUTAGIR, Appellant,
v.
Kenneth MARLIN, Harris J. Buchbinder and Ira M. Elegant, Appellees.
84-987.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jul 31, 1984.
453 So. 2d 503
Ferguson and Jorgenson, JJ. and Norris, William A., Jr., Associate Judge.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Stinson, Lyons & Schuette and Mark D. Greenberg, Miami, for appellant.

Harris J. Buchbinder and Ira M. Elegant and Arnold Nevins, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ. and NORRIS, WILLIAM A., JR., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented by appellant's motion to transfer venue is whether a complaint to rescind an agreement for the conveyance of land based on fraudulent misrepresentation, to which there is a counterclaim for specific performance, is a local action which must be heard where the land is located. The trial court correctly rejected appellant's contention that any action in which the major issue involves real property is in the nature of an in rem proceeding, and is a local action.

The test for the proper action venue has generally been not whether the direct effect of the action would be in rem or in personam, but whether the occurrence giving rise to the action could have happened only in one place or might have happened anywhere. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Thomasville, 100 Fla. 748, 751, 130 So. 7, 9 (1930). In this case, the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations could have been made in any county. Further, an action for specific performance of an agreement to sell land is purely an in personam action which need not be brought in the county where the land is located. Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36, 46, 162 So. 356, 360 (1935); McMullen v. McMullen, 122 So.2d 626, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).

The order denying the motion to transfer is AFFIRMED.