Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Harold BENJAMIN and Donna Benjamin, Appellants, v. CR HANCOCK BRIDGE, LLC, Bayshore Title Insurance Company, Appellees.
Harold and Donna Benjamin (“Benjamins”) appeal from an order granting CR Hancock Bridge, LLC's (“Hancock”) motion to transfer venue from Broward County, Florida to Lee County, Florida. We affirm, writing to address only the issue of forum non conveniens.
After the Benjamins brought an action against Hancock in Broward County, Hancock moved to transfer venue to Lee County on the basis that it was inconvenient for their witnesses. Included with the motion to transfer venue was an affidavit listing nine (9) witnesses Hancock would call to testify, the relevant information that they would testify to, and the assertion that all witnesses were located in and around Lee County. There is no dispute that Lee County would be a proper venue.
Venue may be transferred “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2007). Of the three reasons for transferring venue, the convenience of the witnesses has been deemed the most important consideration. Wynn Drywall, Inc. v. Aequicap Program Adm'r's, Inc., 953 So.2d 28, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Hancock's affidavit asserting witness inconvenience and the general, material information to which the witnesses would testify was sufficient to permit transfer of venue to Lee County. See Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So.2d 1096, 1098 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (showing the “gist” of relevant knowledge of witnesses is sufficient to support a motion to transfer venue). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue to Lee County for forum non conveniens.
Affirmed.
DAMOORGIAN, J.
KLEIN, and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 4D08-1419.
Decided: July 30, 2008
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)