Mann v. Yeatts
111 So. 3d 934
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Paternity action filed in Hillsborough County in 1996, resulting in paternity determination and child-support order.
- In 2010, Appellant sought to reduce child support in Hillsborough; petition denied and fees awarded.
- In early 2011, Appellee sought to file a supplemental petition in Hillsborough to increase support; she notified Appellant and he responded by filing a petition in Putnam County.
- Appellant’s Putnam petition claimed disability and inability to pay, and included venue-related assertions that witnesses and doctors resided in Northeast Florida and that travel to Hillsborough was impractical.
- Appellee sought transfer to Hillsborough County; Putnam courted the transfer issue at an August 2, 2011 hearing; the court reserved ruling until mid-August and then issued a written order transferring the case to Hillsborough.
- The trial court found that the original Hillsborough action had been in Hillsborough since 1996 and deemed Appellant’s Putnam filing as posturing and gamesmanship; this led to affirmation on appeal that the Hillsborough venue was proper and transfer was within the trial court’s discretion under section 47.122.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under 47.122. | Mann sought transfer to Putnam for convenience. | Yeatts argued proper venue in Hillsborough; transfer to Putnam was improper. | Discretion to transfer to Hillsborough; removal to Hillsborough proper under 47.122. |
| Whether Putnam was proper venue for a modification action under §61.14. | Putnam proper under §61.14; modification venue may favor where a party resides. | Venue improper in Putnam; Hillsborough proper. | Trial court erred in not treating argument as preserved; ultimately affirmed transfer back to Hillsborough. |
| Preservation of error for evidentiary matters at August 2 hearing. | Error in not taking evidence at hearing preserved. | No preservation; deposition would not change result. | Error not preserved; claim rejected on merits. |
| Whether the trial court could sua sponte transfer for convenience or justice. | Not argued; plaintiff contends improper grounds. | Transfer allowed under 47.122 for convenience/in the interests of justice. | Appellate court affirmed discretionary transfer to Hillsborough within 47.122. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resor v. Welling, 44 So.3d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (venue/transfers under forum-related principles)
- Stewart v. Coleman, 413 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (venue can change under 47.122 upon proper showing of convenience/in the interests of justice)
- P.A.G. v. A.F., 602 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 1992) (venue under §61.14 provides multiple locations for modification actions)
- McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So.3d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (proper-moving party bears burden on forum non conveniens context under 47.122)
- Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So.3d 304 (Fla. 2012) (venue challenge; clarifies burden on improper venue challenges)
- Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So.2d 100 (Fla.1955) (baseline for forum non conveniens considerations in venue)