Peter E. SWINSCOE and Chloe M. Swinscoe, His Wife, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 75-483.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
October 3, 1975.
320 So. 2d 11
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen E. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
CROSS, Judge.
Appellants, Peter E. Swinscoe and Chloe M. Swinscoe, his wife, take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered by the trial court transferring venue to Leon County. We reverse.
Appellants, Peter E. Swinscoe and Chloe M. Swinscoe, his wife, sued appellee, Department of Revenue, in Broward County seeking to enjoin appellee from collecting certain documentary stamp taxes. The Department of Revenue filed a motion seeking a change of venue to Leon County where it “resides” and maintains its official headquarters. The trial court entered an order transferring the cause to Leon County. It is from this order that appellants take this interlocutory appeal.
The sole question presented for our determination on this appeal is whether the trial court erred transferring this action to Leon County.
Absent a waiver, a state agency may be sued in a county other than the situs of its official headquarters only when the official action complained of has, in fact, been or is being performed in the county wherein the suit is filed or when the threat of such action in said county is both real and imminent. Department of Revenue v. Arvida Corporation, 315 So.2d 235, Opinion filed July 2, 1975, Second District Court of Appeal Case; Department of Revenue v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 256 So.2d 524 (Fla. App. 1971).
It is our opinion that the official action taken by the Department of Revenue in this case was of such a nature as to require that appellants be allowed to bring suit in Broward County against the Department of Revenue. The trial court, therefore, erred in transferring this action to Leon County.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court herein appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.
WALDEN, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
