Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...but that is not the case. Judicial discretion is most often required when the trial court must decide whether to change venue from one proper location to another. For example, if the trial court determines that it is necessary to change venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes for the convenience of the witnesses, the order is reviewable by the abuse of discretion standard....

...We reverse the District Court for reasons which will be set out below. It is clear that, under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes, [5] Petitioners had multiple *668 venue choices available to them and that they properly exercised their right of selection; that under Section 47.122, [6] Florida Statutes, the forum non conveniens statute, usually a cause may be transferred for the convenience of either the parties or the witnesses; and that Petitioners invoked Section 47.163, Florida Statutes, [7] in opposition to Respondent's motion to transfer. The District Court, in essence, nullified Section 47.163, Florida Statutes, holding that Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, being a later expression of legislative will, controls....

...at the same time. [9] Of course, repeal by implication is not favored. [10] Applying these general principles of the specific facts of this case, we hold that, absent the necessary clear intention to repeal, the later discretionary general statute (§ 47.122, F.S., the forum non conveniens statute) is presumed to have made an exception to the prior specific, mandatory statute (§ 47.163, F.S.) which prohibits transfer of a case to the residence of either of the parties without their consent....

...s supplied.) [8] Ellis v. City of Winter Haven, 60 So.2d 620 (Fla. 1952). [9] Garner v. Ward, 251 So.2d 252 (Fla. 1971). [10] Howarth v. City of DeLand, 117 Fla. 692, 158 So. 294 (1934). [11] Section 47.051, Florida Statutes, supra, see Note 5. [12] Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, supra, see Note 6....

...No appearance for appellees Chee Fai Hor, Lim Yeang Sing and Goodville Mutual Cas. Co. ERVIN, Judge. In this interlocutory appeal, appellant, plaintiff below, asks us to determine that the lower court abused its discretion in ordering that, pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] venue be changed in a wrongful death action from Escambia to Walton County....

...Hu (of Pensacola), as personal representative of the Chen estate, filed this wrongful death action in his home county of Escambia. Defendants and appellees Crockett, The Lerio Corporation, Hertz and Travelers Indemnity Company moved for a change of venue based on Section 47.122, Florida Statutes....

...Counsel for the respective parties are commended in their efforts to supplement a deficient record by their stipulations. With a proper substitute for a transcript of the hearing before us and knowledge of the basis for the lower court's determination, we affirm. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, states that venue may be changed, based on three considerations, including: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; or (3) in the interest of justice....

...ach of the factors. Further, in so doing it is also proper to consult federal case law deciding cases under the parallel and virtually identical federal venue provision embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal case law is highly persuasive, because Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, is apparently modeled after the federal provision....

...hat the greater number of witnesses are located in the Walton County area. Further, these witnesses are apparently very important witnesses, according to the allegations in appellees' motion for change of venue. Thus, the most important factor under Section 47.122 — convenience of the witnesses — weighs heavily in favor of a change of venue....

...Laws of Florida, while the federal provision predated it by 21 years. See Ch. 646, 62 Stat. 937 (1948). [6] Whether the Ashland Oil requirement of showing a substantial in convenience to the parties is the proper standard to be used in considering a Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, venue change is a question we needn't reach....

...tal has its sole and only place of business. The trial court transferred the cause from Orange County to St. Johns County for lack of venue in Orange County, Florida, Fla. Stat. § 47.011 (1973), and because of convenience of the parties, Fla. Stat. § 47.122 (1973)....

...iff of an election of forum within which to file the cause of action, under the general venue statute. The second point raised by the appellant is that the trial court erred in transferring the cause because of convenience of the parties. Fla. Stat. § 47.122, reads as follows: "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." In the instant case, the...

...However, the answer in the case at bar contains no objection to venue. Thus, the privilege of venue is deemed waived. RCP 1.140(h), 30 F.S.A. and Brennan v. Brennan, supra. Therefore, this argument of appellant must fail. Appellant secondly contends that the trial court abused its discretion under F.S. § 47.122 F.S.A. in not transferring the instant case. We cannot agree. Fla. Stat. § 47.122 F.S.A. reads as follows: "47.122 Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record i...

...1971), venue may be sustained in Dade County only if, as we hold, the cause of action "accrued" here. In this connection, we agree with the defendant that for present purposes — although not in considering the separate question of whether a transfer for convenience under § 47.122 is appropriate, see Hu v....

...[4] We are unimpressed with the parade of horribles invoked by the appellant as to the consequences of a rule under which a tortfeasor may be required to defend an action for consequences his conduct has caused in an unanticipated area far from his home. Any such complaint may be remedied, if justified, under § 47.122....

...The above recited facts are not in dispute, having been agreed upon by the parties in their briefs. Based upon the foregoing state of facts the appellee filed in the Circuit Court of Leon County, where the case was pending, a motion for change of venue pursuant to Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A....

...he court does not have jurisdiction throughout the county, where defendant resides, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents." Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., provides: "Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...asota County where the cause of action accrued and where the property in litigation is located, and that therefore they have a right to, and did in fact, waive their governmental privilege to be sued in Leon County, thereby bringing Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., into play which permits the transfer of any civil action to any other county "in which it might have been brought." Appellant, on the other hand, contended below and now here that the defendants, being state governmental entities h...

...sota County is not a county in which the action might have been brought and that accordingly the Circuit Court erred in transferring the case for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 47.122, F.S.A....

...The parties have also cited two United States Supreme Court cases, Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254; and Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945, which cases treat the federal statute from whence Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., came....

...ving found that Sarasota County was a proper forum for the bringing of the action, and it having been established that such is the more convenient forum, it follows that the order transferring the case to Sarasota County pursuant to Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., was proper. Accordingly the order of the Circuit Court transferring the cause to the more convenient forum pursuant to Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., is affirmed and the interlocutory appeal is hereby dismissed....

...to decide whether to transfer the action to Hillsborough County or Orange County. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b). [3] The concept of nexus is relevant when the trial court is considering a motion to transfer venue on forum non conveniens grounds under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997), see Sullivan v....

...iction. We note, however, that a motion to change venue made subsequent to a timely interposed objection to personal jurisdiction, if not itself waived, would not waive the objection to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., § 47.101, Fla. Stat. (2002); § 47.122, Fla....

...tract there * * *" [10] The motion of the defendant for a transfer of venue should have been granted. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. McCORD, C.J., and MELVIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] We are not here concerned with F.S. 47.122 relating to convenience of the parties, nor F.S....

...o state a cause of action. Turning first to the order of December 8, 1980, which changes venue from Pinellas to Baker County, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Tackett Plastics, Inc., 527 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Sage *836 v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Hartford, 239 So.2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (holding plaintiff has right to maintain action in proper forum "in the absence of a motion to transfer and a proper showing under Section 47.122,......

...1.060(b). This language gives the court authority to transfer only when a timely Rule 1.140 motion challenging improper venue has been made. Jerolaman v. Van Buren, 512 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Section 47.122 states, "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...Under the even more compelling circumstances where venue is proper, we cannot escape concluding that the trial court's authority to transfer a case because the forum is inconvenient must also be predicated upon a proper challenge. [1] The trial court's discretion to transfer under Section 47.122 is not unbridled and must be predicated upon a showing that the parties or witnesses will suffer substantial inconvenience or undue expense due to the chosen forum....

...I agree with the majority that the order under review must be reversed. I disagree with so much of the majority opinion as holds that a trial court can never sua sponte raise the question whether there should be a change of venue for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993). Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, states: 47.122 Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.—For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought. The statute contains no requirement that a transfer under section 47.122 be raised only by motion of one of the parties....

...ity to be heard." Hewitt Contracting Co. v. Joyner Electric, Inc., 616 So.2d at 191; Morris-Edge Masonry, Inc. v. Tonn & Blank, Inc., 461 So.2d at 1037. In the present case, like Hewitt Contracting and Morris-Edge Masonry, the trial court raised the section 47.122 issue sua sponte and transferred venue without giving any prior notice to the parties....

...We should therefore *838 reverse the venue transfer order on authority of Hewitt Contracting and Morris-Edge Masonry and remand for a new hearing. It should also be noted that the Fourth and Fifth District rule is the same as that followed in the federal court system. This court has pointed out that Florida's section 47.122 "is identical to the Federal statute, 28 U.S.C.§ 1404(a), which has been construed in many federal appellate decisions." England v. Cook, 256 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). [6] In England v. Cook this court followed federal precedent in deciding the venue transfer issue; likewise, in construing Florida's section 47.122, the First District has said that "[f]ederal case law is highly persuasive." Hu v....

...n conveniens need not be made within the time limits set forth under Rule 1.140, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Whitehead v. National Crane Corp., 466 So.2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d at 1046. [2] We do not overlook that Section 47.122 closely patterns federal statute 28 U.S.C....

...[4] By contrast, section 47.101, Florida Statutes, creates a right for a change of venue where a party believes he or she will not receive a fair trial. That statute is explicitly triggered by the filing of a motion. Id. No such requirement is contained in section 47.122....

...The appellee, Ellen Eggers, sued her son, Frederick, for conversion. Frederick is a resident of Hillsborough County. The action was brought in Citrus County. The complaint does not allege the basis for venue in Citrus County. Frederick moved to transfer and/or dismiss pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statues, the forum non conveniens statute....

...During closing argument, Frederick's counsel referred to Ellen as living in Tampa "when all these activities took place." No testimony or other evidence to this effect appears of record. The trial court denied both motions. We reverse the venue ruling. Frederick's motion to transfer/dismiss was filed solely pursuant to section 47.122 which provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...Crittenden, 732 So.2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The trial court had before it only evidence that the more convenient forum is Hillsborough County. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to fail to transfer venue to Hillsborough County under section 47.122....

...[7] We do not consider respondent's arguments relating to the convenience of witnesses and records because they are not relevant to whether an action must be dismissed or transferred under section 47.011, but only to whether an action may be transferred to a court "in which it might have been brought" under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985).

...Statutes, and by sending the case back to the Court in which it was originally filed, this Court has hereby afforded an appropriate safeguard against forum-shopping or some other attempted promiscuous use of the venue laws. "4. This Court finds that Section 47.122 of the Florida Statutes, justifies and requires that this case be transferred to Broward County because to do otherwise would result in substantial inconvenience and undue expenses to the litigants and the witnesses and, further, would...

...[6] It is difficult to accept the railroad's suggestion that the plaintiff abandoned his Broward County suit over displeasure at the trial court's granting a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, a rather innocuous ruling. [7] We do not overlook that under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979), a court may transfer a case in "the interests of justice." But "interests of justice" is merely an alternative ground for transfer under established principles of law, not a panacea for ailing motions or the erroneously perceived injustice of "forum shopping." See, e.g....

...roper venue, but the trial court's oral ruling suggested that venue should be transferred for reasons of convenience and judicial economy. A trial court may sua sponte raise the question of whether venue should be transferred to another county under section 47.122 for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...4th DCA 1985). However, the "issue can be decided only after both parties receive appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard." Hewitt, 616 So.2d at 191. Because the defendants had not filed a motion to transfer for forum non conveniens under section 47.122, the trial court erred in entertaining such a claim on its own motion without giving the plaintiff advance notice....

...In Utilicore, the Third District explained: The trial court's oral pronouncement suggests that the court believed venue should be transferred because Miami-Dade County was an inconvenient forum. The defendants had not filed a motion to transfer under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997), nor had the court given advance notice that it desired to entertain such a claim on its own motion....

...The actions did not involve the same issues, and none of the parties were residents of Hendry. Therefore, there were many issues upon which Reserve Realty could have offered proof to convince the trial court that transfer to Hendry County would be inconvenient for the parties and would not be in the interests of justice. See § 47.122, Fla....

...itially been sought by certiorari. [8] Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal with respect to appellants' second assignment of error as argued in point two of its brief is therefore denied. CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] F.S. § 47.122, F.S.A....

...is whether the lower court can, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, raise the question of forum non conveniens in the absence of a motion by a defendant. It is, by now, clear that a change of venue based on forum non conveniens pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997) can be raised by the court....

...It is incumbent upon the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed the necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. Id. at 837 (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Based upon the rationale of the cases interpreting section 47.122, Florida Statutes and the language of the new Rule 1.061, it appears that the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens rule is the same as the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens statute....

...We reversed in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Wagner, supra note 2. On remand, the trial court gave plaintiff the option of voluntarily dismissing the state or of having the case transferred to Leon County; plaintiff chose to dismiss the state. [4] Section 47.122, Fla....

...Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ. PEARSON, Judge. The defendants Peterson, Howell & Heather (d/b/a D.C. Peterson Trust), Berkline Corporation and Liston Junior Green appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for change of venue pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.122, which provides for change of venue where the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interests of justice so require....

...Rosart, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 708, in which we held that an election of venue by the plaintiff could not be changed upon the grounds of convenience. This decision is no longer of force and effect inasmuch as it was decided prior to the enactment of Fla. Stat. § 47.122, the change of venue statute for convenience of parties with which we are here concerned. We, therefore, hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer this cause to Polk County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.122....

...in Sebring, Florida, is the proper venue and most convenient venue for disposition of this cause." The trial judge denied the motion and this interlocutory appeal was taken. The sole issue for our determination in this appeal is whether, pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statute (1975), the court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a change of venue. Based upon the facts that are set forth below, it is our opinion that the court did abuse its discretion, warranting our reversal of the order appealed from. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1975) provides that: "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...§ 47.041, Fla. Stat. (1979). Therefore, Pearson could bring suit in any county where the cause of action in tort or contract arose. [4] The court's decision to transfer venue in Gaboury actually turned on transfer for grounds of "forum non-conveniens." § 47.122, Fla....

...rformance of the vendees agreement to purchase was not required to be maintained where the property was located. Appellee's second basis for sustaining the order transferring venue from Leon County to Gasden County is the asserted applicability of F.S. 47.122 which provides that for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...have been brought "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice" we nevertheless note that the only allegation in Talquin's motion to abate or *360 transfer which could possibly be construed as an attempt to invoke F.S. 47.122 is the recitation that: "All of the witnesses, including the plaintiff in this action, reside in Quincy, Gadsden County, Florida * *"....

...d court-houses) of said counties and that said county seats are connected by several highways, one of which is a multi-lane "superhighway". Finding, as we do, that no sound basis appears in the record, or even in the briefs, for the application of F.S. 47.122 either on the basis of convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, we necessarily conclude that the aid of that statute was improvidently invoked....

...In this interlocutory appeal in a products liability action, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Liggett Group, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., appeal an order denying their motion for change of venue from Duval County to Putnam County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...[2] The parties agree, however, that venue would be proper under section 47.051 in either Duval County or Putnam County, presumably because Winn-Dixie owns and operates grocery stores in both those counties. Thus, as this suit could have been brought in Putnam County, section 47.122 would permit a change of venue to Putnam County for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. After Young answered his first set of interrogatories, the appellants moved for a transfer of venue pursuant to section 47.122....

...and Canada. In that event, he argues that Duval County, with a major airport, would be more convenient for these witnesses. Based upon this evidence and argument, the trial court denied the motion for change of venue. Change of Venue Analysis under Section 47.122 In our review of the trial court's denial of a venue change under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, we are controlled by our decision in Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Hu, we set forth the appropriate analysis for determining under what circumstances a change of venue should be ordered under section 47.122 based upon the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion can be shown. Id. at 1281. Further, as this court pointed out in Hu, even though the plaintiff's choice of forum is not controlling under section 47.122, "a plaintiff's forum selection is a `meaningful consideration' in determining the convenience of the parties ... and the burden is clearly upon the party challenging the plaintiff's venue selection to demonstrate the impropriety of that selection." Id. at 1278-79 (citations omitted). The most important consideration of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the witnesses....

...must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony." Id. As the Hu court observed, it is critical for this information to be provided to enable the trial court to properly weigh the convenience of all of the key witnesses under section 47.122....

...Thus, because the identity and nature of the testimony of the *1380 key witnesses had not been made known to the trial court, it lacked the information by which it might have had a basis to balance the inconveniences. In addition, concerning the "interest of justice" factor in section 47.122, there is a dearth of evidence to suggest that Putnam County would be the better choice of venue in the interest of justice....

...Both cases involved automobile accidents which occurred in Florida counties other than in the forum county and in both cases many witnesses were located in the county in which the accidents occurred. Thus, under the facts in Borozny and Broughton, it was error not to transfer venue under section 47.122....

...occurring in this court with increasing frequency. We publish our ruling in this matter to reiterate our advice in Panesso. We will continue to treat similar abuses of rule 9.225 in the same manner. AFFIRMED. JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 47.122 provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...iens and adopting a four-part analysis for deciding when venue would be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida. While one of our sister district courts of appeal has relied upon Kinney in the analysis of a venue question under section 47.122, Westchester Fire Ins....

...1st DCA 1983), rather than Kinney, should be used under the statute. We thus align ourselves with the Second District Court of Appeal which has held that a Kinney analysis is not appropriate for determining a motion for change of venue within Florida under section 47.122....

...*569 The second front of the attack on Polk County venue was that even if venue properly lies in Polk County, the trial court was warranted in changing venue to the more convenient forum in Leon County. The judicial doctrine of forum non conveniens was replaced by Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1975). Section 47.122 permits the court to transfer a case to another forum based upon two considerations: 1) the convenience of the parties or witnesses, and 2) the interests of justice. The discretion of the trial court under Section 47.122 is not unbridled and must be predicated upon a proper showing of these grounds....

...xpense to the parties will result in the forum chosen by the plaintiff, or that the forum may not afford a fair and impartial decision. Under the facts of the case at bar, appellants chose proper venue in Polk County. Although DOT could have invoked Section 47.122 to change from this otherwise proper venue, it was incumbent upon DOT to make the proper showing of convenience or justice required by the statute....

...Having so failed, the defendant must bear the consequences of having the suit maintained in [Putnam] County. 243 So.2d at 447. The order appealed is REVERSED. REVERSED. CROSS, J., and BROWNLEE, Associate Judge., concur. NOTES [1] Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). [2] § 47.091, Fla. Stat. (1979). [3] § 47.122, Fla....

...Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (1993), governs venue choices. It provides: Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against non-residents. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993), entitled "Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice," provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought. The trial court may have envisioned that Sumter County would be a more convenient forum pursuant to section 47.122, because it found that "all of the evidence concerning issues of alimony, property distribution and child support" was located there....

...The third district reversed the trial court's order transferring the venue of the separate maintenance action to Lee County, even though the wife's prior dissolution action had been properly transferred there. Friedman did not address the issue of whether a change of venue would have been proper pursuant to section 47.122, presumably because the parties did not seek transfer on that basis. [1] Although Broward County was a proper venue choice for the separate maintenance action, Sumter County, the place of the husband's residence, also would have been a proper venue choice. The trial court had discretion, pursuant to section 47.122, to transfer this action to Sumter County, provided that the prerequisites for invoking that statute and the case law interpreting it were met....

...ould be followed." Id. at 217. Accordingly we reverse the order of transfer because Broward County was not the wrong or improper forum, and remand for the entry of an order of abatement or alternatively *817 for consideration of transfer pursuant to section 47.122....

...NOTES [1] Friedman cites Rivenbark as authority for abatement. Rivenbark in turn cites Cicero v. Paradis, 184 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) and Oyama v. Oyama, 138 Fla. 422, 189 So. 418 (Fla. 1939), cases which preceded the 1969 legislative enactment of section 47.122....

...This suit was filed in Orange County, seeking damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident occurring in Jackson County, Florida. A defendant seeks review of an order denying its motion for change of venue from Orange to Jackson County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.122 (1973)....

...Under the above facts we conclude (as did the court in Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O'Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. App.3rd, 1975) on closely analogous facts) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.122 (1973)....

...[3] In response to appropriate proceedings challenging venue the case was transferred to Duval County. [4] After conducting discovery proceedings while the case was lodged in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County the plaintiffs (appellees here) filed a motion to change venue back to Dade County pursuant to F.S. 47.122, the "convenience statute"....

...transaction of its customary business; (b) Where the cause of action accrued; (c) Where the property in litigation is located. [9] It will be noted that in both F.S. 47.011 and 47.051 the legislature saw fit to employ the limiting word "only". By F.S. 47.122 the legislature provided: "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." We conclude that the concluding phrase of the last quoted statute "in which it might have been brought" refers to the three venue alternatives provided by F.S. 47.011 and F.S. 47.051 and is therefore a limitation upon the operation of F.S. 47.122....

...ving found that Sarasota County was a proper forum for the bringing of the action, and it having been established that such is the more convenient forum, it follows that the order transferring the case to Sarasota County pursuant to Florida Statutes § 47.122, F.S.A., was proper." [12] Our reasoning that the legislature intended to limit change of venue for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice to a court in another county "in which it might have been brought" under F.S....

...Did the trial court err in transferring this case to Dade County where the case had originally been transferred from Dade to Duval and the transfer back to Dade is prohibited by Florida Statutes § 47.131? "II. Did the trial court err in transferring this case to Dade County pursuant to Florida Statutes § 47.122, where Dade County was not a county where the action `might have been brought'?" [7] The basis for application of F.S. 47.122....

...[9] We are not here concerned with nonresident individuals (F.S. 47.011) nor are we concerned with an agent or representative of a foreign corporation (F.S. 47.051). [10] Appellee urges, without citation of authority, that the concluding clause of F.S. 47.122 applies to jurisdiction of the court to which transferred rather than venue....

...ege, a nonresident over whom personal jurisdiction can be obtained consistent with constitutional considerations can, at a plaintiff's election, be sued in any county in this state, subject only to the doctrine of forum non conveniens as codified in section 47.122, Florida Statutes....

...y, Burger King restaurant. The complaint contained no allegations regarding where defendant maintained its principal place of business. Defendant moved under Section 47.051, Florida statutes (1989), to dismiss on this ground or, alternatively, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989), to transfer venue to Broward County....

...The court denied the motion to transfer venue. This appeal follows. Venue in this case was properly laid, initially, in Dade County under Section 47.051 because the defendant is a domestic corporation with a Dade County office where it transacts its customary business. Section 47.122, however, provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." The decision to transfer venue based upon Section 47.122 is one which is within the sound discretion of the court, and the party contesting the choice of venue must show an abuse of this discretion in order to successfully challenge the court's determination....

...This single contact with Dade County, standing alone, is indeed minimal, and appears to be even more so when contrasted with the Broward County contacts. Clearly, transfer of this matter to Broward County best serves the convenience of the witnesses, as well as the plaintiff, under Section 47.122, with only a slight possible inconvenience to defendant....

...1st DCA 1978), this court said: We read the Bassett opinion as one which simply determines that the movant failed to make the required showing that a transfer was appropriate "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." § 47.122. If, however, it holds that § 47.122 may not be utilized to deprive the plaintiff of his choice of forum if the transferor and transferee counties are adjacent and are connected by convenient means of transportation, we simply disagree with that conclusion....

...nsferred to the courts having "territorial and consequently in rem jurisdiction." Id. at 186. In Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diaz, 578 So.2d 40, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we affirmed an order transferring venue, for the convenience of the parties, under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, under circumstances which are analogous to those in this case....

...d/b/a Tampa General Hospital (the Hospital), concerning its billing and collection practices with regard to uninsured patients. In these consolidated appeals, the Hospital challenges a nonfinal order denying its motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2005), and two nonfinal orders granting class certification....

...that basis, the Plaintiffs seek an accounting and the "return of all illegally collected funds." MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE In September 2005, the Hospital filed a motion to transfer venue from Charlotte *578 County to Hillsborough County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...In its motion, the Hospital did not seek dismissal under rule 1.061 to a jurisdiction outside of Florida. Instead, the Hospital sought a transfer of venue to another Florida county based on "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice," as provided for in section 47.122. [3] Thus, rule 1.061 is not controlling because it does not apply to motions to transfer venue within Florida under section 47.122. See E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Fuzzell, 681 So.2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (acknowledging that the analysis applicable to a motion made pursuant to rule 1.061 does not apply to a motion to transfer venue within Florida pursuant to section 47.122); John Christen Corp. v. Maita, 571 So.2d 24, 25 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (observing that section 47.122 contains no time limitation)....

...With respect to the merits of the Hospital's venue motion, the Hospital does not argue on appeal that Charlotte County is not a proper venue for this lawsuit. Rather, it contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to transfer venue to Hillsborough County. Section 47.122 provides, "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." A trial court's decision on whether to change venue under section 47.122 is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review....

...al court had before it only evidence that Hillsborough County was the more convenient forum. 776 So.2d at 1098. The Fifth District concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion and reversed the denial of the motion to transfer venue under section 47.122....

...Further, it is unclear to what extent, if any, the testimony of class members other than the named Plaintiffs would be needed for trial. Because of the lack of specificity in the affidavits submitted by the Hospital, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue under section 47.122. Thus, we affirm the order denying the motion to transfer venue. We recognize, however, *580 that as new information is developed on remand, on proper motion with appropriate proof, a transfer of venue under section 47.122 may be warranted....

...suit in that county. We therefore quash the Fourth District's decision affirming the grant of the motion to transfer venue. Finally, we decline to address the defendants' argument on appeal that the change of venue should have been affirmed based on section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2009), which provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." "The party seeking the transfer [pursuant to section 47.122] bears the burden of showing substantial inconvenience or undue expense to establish a basis for the transfer." Resor v....

...ocation, number, or availability of the witnesses, or any other factor relevant to the convenience of the parties or the interests of justice in this case. Accordingly, this Court cannot evaluate at this time whether a motion to transfer pursuant to section 47.122 would have or should have been granted....

...Much of the evolving case law has centered around the federal forum non conveniens statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits inter state as well as intra state transfers of any civil action "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice". Florida, which enacted an intra state venue statute, section 47.122, Florida Statutes, has by decisional law recognized inter state application of the doctrine....

...Charles Morrill, III; Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.; KCCS, Inc.; Russell Engineering, Inc.; Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc.; and Traffic Control Products of Florida, Inc., all defendants below, appeal an order denying a transfer of venue to Alachua County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2002), of the consolidated actions filed in Duval County, Florida by appellees, John Lytle, as personal representative of the estate of Jennifer Lytle, and the estate of Michael Alexander, II, by and through Michael S....

...Young, 690 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While the trial court below was correct in concluding that under section 47.051, Florida Statutes (2002), an action may be brought in a county in which a foreign corporation maintains an agent or representative, section 47.122 authorizes the trial court to transfer the actions to any other court in which it might have been brought "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice...." The most important of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the witnesses....

...t and rolled over. Tatyana was ejected from the vehicle and died as a result of her injuries. Upon the filing of the complaint in Broward County, Ford and Michelin each filed a motion to transfer venue seeking transfer to Columbia County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2007), on grounds of forum non conveniens....

...The trial court found that Ford and Michelin had not met their burden of overcoming the deference to which James' choice of forum was entitled and denied the motions to transfer venue. A trial court's denial of a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Vitale v. Vitale, 994 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Section 47.122 provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought. § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2007). Thus, there are three statutory factors a court considers in determining whether to grant a motion pursuant to section 47.122:(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience *93 of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice....

...hat the greater number of witnesses are located in the Walton County area. Further, these witnesses are apparently very important witnesses, according to the allegations in appellees' motion for change of venue. Thus, the most important factor under Section 47.122—convenience of the witnesses-weighs heavily in favor of a change of venue....

...y because either was appropriate. Id. The former wife argues that, because Marion County is an inconvenient forum for the child and the witnesses, justice requires that this case be heard in Broward County. The former wife's argument is supported by section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993), which allows a civil case to be transferred from Marion County to Broward County "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses." [3] In this case, the majority of the child's pertinent witnesses are in Broward County....

...[2] Section 61.13(2)(c) provides: The circuit court in the county in which either parent or the child resides and the circuit court in which the original award of custody was entered have jurisdiction to modify an award of child custody. The court may change the venue in accordance with s. 47.122. § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993). [3] Section 47.122 provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought. § 47.122, Fla....

...se from Dade County to Hillsborough County because the case had no connection to Dade County. The Third District stated that it "adopts both the literal and philosophical ethos" of Kinney. The court further stated that "`in the interest of justice', § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...ts within Florida. " Kinney, 674 So.2d at 88, n. 3. We conclude that nothing in Kinney suggests that the supreme court intended that the trial court use this analysis in determining whether a motion for change of venue within Florida is appropriate. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...of action accrued. Firstamerica Development Corp. v. Daytona Beach News-Journal Corp., 196 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1966). In the order on appeal, [1] however, the trial court transferred the case to Broward County under the forum non conveniens statute. Sec. 47.122, Fla....

...NOTES [1] Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). [2] We read the Bassett opinion as one which simply determines that the movant failed to make the required showing that a transfer was appropriate "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." § 47.122. If, however, it holds that § 47.122 may not be utilized to deprive the plaintiff of his choice of forum if the transferor and transferee counties are adjacent and are connected by convenient means of transportation, we simply disagree with that conclusion....

...Kenney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees. COBB, Chief Judge. This is a timely appeal from a nonfinal order in which the trial court granted appellees' motion to transfer venue from Orange County to Palm Beach County pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060 and section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...ch a change of venue is permissible. We recognize that all courts have the power to grant changes of venue. § 47.091, Fla. Stat. (1991). Chapter 47 contains the circumstances under which a court may grant a change of venue. See §§ 47.101, 47.121, 47.122, Fla....

...4th DCA 1989). Smith, however, failed to furnish any proof in the trial court to sustain his burden of demonstrating entitlement to the transfer of venue to Pinellas County. See McMichael, 174 So. at 325; Groome v. State, 448 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Under section 47.122, the trial court may grant a change of venue to another court in which it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...See Spaziano, 547 So.2d at 315. We thus find that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff's venue selection was improper pursuant to section 47.011. We emphasize that Cedars did not seek, and the trial court did not order, a transfer based on section 47.122. Section 47.122 authorizes a change of venue to any court where the action might have been brought "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." See Tucker, 484 So.2d at 1372 n....

...Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellees. NORTHCUTT, Judge. We reverse a nonfinal order transferring venue of this paternity suit from Polk County *294 to Gadsden County, and we remand for a hearing on the question whether venue should be transferred pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Liberty *295 Mut. Ins. Co., 366 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Still, upon a sufficient showing, the circuit court is empowered to transfer the case to another proper venue for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice. See § 47.122, Fla....

...or doing business in Broward County, Florida." Plaintiffs filed a response to defendant's motion alleging that defendant-Disney advertises and solicits business throughout Florida, including Broward County, and demanding trial in Broward under Fla. Stat. § 47.122 (1973), for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, alleging that they and most of their witnesses resided in Broward, and that because defendant-Disney's attraction is located in Orange and supports th...

...e of some dicta to the contrary in the court's opinion in Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1974). [3] Appellees in responding to the motion, apparently sought to justify venue in Broward County on the basis of Fla. Stat. § 47.122. It is clear that venue in the first *605 instance was only properly laid in Orange County. Had the action been brought there initially, appellees could not have successfully sought transfer to Broward County under § 47.122 absent the consent of appellant-Disney. Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, supra. Manifestly, appellant-Disney does not consent to the action being brought in Broward County. Thus, appellees may not rely upon § 47.122 as justification for the action being "retained" in Broward County....

...the vehicle in which Ken Taylor was riding. The accident occurred in Osceola County. Ken, who was severely burned, was taken to a hospital in Orlando County and within twenty-four hours transferred to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Dade County. Under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979), [2] a defendant seeking a change of venue bears the burden of proving that substantial inconvenience or undue expense to the parties would result from trial in the forum chosen by the plaintiff and that a change is therefore required for the convenience of the parties or witnesses....

...Bussey, supra, will not result in such an unpalatable and unpromising circumstance. This is true for two reasons. First, in 1969 the Legislature of Florida enacted a Forum Non Convenience Statute, which is identical to the Federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It is Section 47.122, Laws of Florida, 1969, and provides: "Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...We believe that the plaintiff had a right to bring this action in Orange County because the foreign corporation defendant had an agent in that county, under the provisions of Section 47.051, supra. We believe that he had a right to maintain it there in the absence of a motion to transfer and a proper showing under Section 47.122, supra, and in the absence of the defendant's claim of venue privilege under Enfinger v....

...(if that be the critical issue) with such degree of certainty as to exclude the idea that the suit was brought in the proper county." Finally, attempts by defendant to support the trial court's ruling on the doctrine of "forum non conveniens" under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, are not persuasive....

...All indications point to Manatee County as the appropriate venue. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is reversed and this cause shall be transferred to Circuit Court in Manatee County for further proceedings. HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. NOTES [1] Cf. Fla. Stat. § 47.122 which provides: "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." [2] "When the territorial j...

...remand for further proceedings in Volusia County. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). [2] On appeal, the defendants argue that the action was properly transferred to Dade County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), the forum non conveniens statute....

...on. Rule 1.140 does not require that the defendant file a separate motion asserting the defense of improper venue, after having raised the defense in its first responsive pleading. Additionally, there is no case law setting forth such a requirement. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2000) and the cases cited by Petrol in support of this proposition are not applicable, as they deal with motions to change venue for the convenience of the parties or witness, not with the defense of improper venue....

...Despite the foregoing agreement, when venue in Leon County was attacked by Southeastern, Barley argued that the court should ignore the venue provision in the contract he had affirmed by his complaint, based upon the statutory grounds of section 47.051 and also the convenience of the parties pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...In support of this motion, Barley filed an affidavit purporting to show that Leon County was the convenient forum. This motion was granted by the Orange County Circuit Court, and the cause ordered transferred back to Leon County "pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060 and Florida Statute 47.122." Southeastern appeals this order....

...The August 19, 1981, Leon County Circuit Court order transferring venue to Orange County was based on venue as contractually stipulated by the parties. The Orange County Circuit Court, however, based the venue transfer back to Leon County on the convenience statute, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1982)....

...To the extent that Barley suggests a distinction between transfer based on the wrong county and transfer based on the venue change provisions of Chapter 47, he is correct. Trawick states: Transfer under Rule 1.060(b) is not the same as a change of venue under sections 47.101, 47.111 and 47.122, Florida Statutes....

...Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Orange County Circuit Court transferring this cause to Leon County, and remand the cause to Orange County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...The plaintiff retained a Broward County lawyer, who filed this action alleging products liability and negligence claims against the defendants. The complaint also alleged a negligence claim against the driver's personal representative. The defendants filed motions to transfer venue, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...inconvenience to the most important witnesses, the experts. This Court reviews "orders denying motions to transfer venue for an abuse of discretion." Tomac of Fla., Inc. v. Gunn's Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc., 17 So.3d 320, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 47.122 governs the transfer of venue from one Florida county to another on the basis of forum non conveniens. "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2009). "[T]here are three statutory factors a court considers in determining whether to grant a motion pursuant to section 47.122:(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice." Ford Motor Co....

...This particularly is true when Florida, for whatever reason, has become an inconvenient forum." 572 So.2d at 1331. [6] There has long been authority for courts to transfer actions for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice to "any other court of record in which it might have brought." See § 47.122, Fla....

...4th DCA 1996), and Ennis v. Conran, 648 So.2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In that circumstance where order of dismissal is final rather than nonfinal we have final appeal jurisdiction under rule 9.110. [8] The concept of forum non conveniens by its very nature encompasses both section 47.122 and rule 1.061....

...anager of its store in Ocala, Florida, and a resident of that city. Defendants moved the circuit court for a change of venue of the case from the Circuit Court of Dade County to the Circuit Court of Marion County (Ocala), pursuant to §§ 47.011 and 47.122, Fla....

...04 as a Negro, would be unfairly treated in the Marion County courts. There was no showing that any witness lived in Dade County, Florida, where the suit was brought. It is appellant's sole contention that the trial judge abused his discretion under § 47.122, Fla....

...rion County and no witnesses live or work in or near Dade County, but almost all of the witnesses reside and work in Marion County which is some three hundred miles away from Dade County. We find merit in appellant's contention and reverse. In 1968, § 47.122 Fla....

...[1] Where: (1) the plaintiff, a Florida resident, sues upon a transitory cause of action arising in Florida, (2) joins an individual defendant who is a resident of Florida with a defendant foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida, (3) that individual defendant asserts a venue privilege under § 47.122, and (4) no witnesses reside in the transferor forum but do reside in the requested transferee forum, then the suit should be transferred....

...nty, or that at least the claims against UF and Shands be severed and transferred to Alachua County. Shands also filed a Motion to Transfer Venue. Shands sought the transfer of venue from Palm Beach County to Alachua County based on Florida Statutes section 47.122, addressing forum non conveniens....

...ue statute must be recognized. It follows that since the instant action could not have originally been filed in Palm Beach County, the trial court could not order the matter maintained there for the convenience of the parties plaintiff or witnesses. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977); Amick v....

...Wilson of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellant. Robert G. Udell of Saylor & Beatty, Stuart, for appellee — Joel Pearl. HERSEY, Judge. This is an appeal seeking review of a non-final order denying a motion for change of venue, filed pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979), Florida's forum non-conveniens statute....

...in which to file. Houchins v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In order to prevail on a motion to transfer for improper venue, defendant must show that venue will not lie or that good reason to transfer exists under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...[4] Thus, in this case, venue was "proper" in Orange County, because counts three and four were joined with counts one and two, and Orange County is the designated venue for those counts. *868 However, even though venue may be "proper" in Orange County pursuant to section 47.041, venue can be changed pursuant to section 47.122, [5] the "forum nonconveniens" statute....

...y necessitating trials in both counties. With the parties' consent, the whole case could be transferred to Palm Beach County or remain in Orange County. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 47.122, Fla....

...ials if expedient. [4] See Pearson v. Wallace Aviation, Inc., 400 So.2d 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Steinhardt v. Palm Beach White House No. 3, Inc., 237 So.2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Motsinger v. E.B. Malone Corp., 297 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). [5] Section 47.122 provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...FPIR filed a motion to transfer venue to Duval County, contending that: 1) the action accrued in Duval County; and 2) Dade County was an inconvenient forum. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered an order transferring venue to Duval County. The Fund then brought this appeal to contest the order. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that: [f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...Therefore, it is the stated policy of our Court to literally apply the doctrine of forum non-conveniens where there is little else other than the plaintiff's choice of venue and where witnesses reside in other more suitable venues. It is "in the interest of justice," § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...Oxford, of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. GRIFFIN, J. This is an appeal from a non-final order denying the defendant below, Safety National Casualty Corporation's ["Safety National"], motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, the forum non conveniens statute....

...well as medical personnel located in Brevard County. The only connection to Broward County is the fact that the corporate defendant has a registered agent in that county. We reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to change venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995), under the authority of Braun v....

...We grant appellant's motion for rehearing, withdraw the opinion filed October 30, 1996, and substitute the following opinion: This is an appeal from a non-final order denying appellant's motion to transfer venue from Dade County to Pinellas County, Florida, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes [1] ....

...3d DCA 1993) (finding where record is devoid of any connection between Dade County and any of the factual occurrences in case or any of the witnesses who might be called to testify in case, trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for change of venue). Reversed and Remanded. NOTES [1] Section 47.122, Fla....

...Thakkar of Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant. Michael A. Goldstein, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. SHAHOOD, J. Wynn Drywall, Inc. ("Wynn Drywall") appeals the trial court's non-final order denying its motion to transfer venue for forum non conveniens under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...g the policy of insurance at issue. It showed that eleven of these contractors are in Duval County, and the remaining seven are located nearby. The trial court conducted a hearing on the matter and denied Wynn Drywall's motion to transfer venue. *30 Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2006), provides: "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." Th...

...that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice." Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). "The most important consideration of the three statutory factors in section 47.122 is the convenience of the witnesses." Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp....

...h County. Id. This court devoted just one sentence to rejecting appellant's forum non conveniens argument as without merit. Id. This court then proceeded to examine whether venue was proper under section 47.051 rather than forum non conveniens under section 47.122....

...against the defendants, dropping Vector from the complaint. None of the remaining defendants is headquartered in Miami-Dade County. The defendants took Mooney’s deposition and, shortly thereafter, in December 2012, filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122 of the Florida Statutes (2012). The defendant tobacco companies do not dispute that venue was proper when Mooney originally filed her consolidated action against them and Vector in the Miami-Dade Court....

...the initial venue so as to require that the action be transferred . . . .” Vance, M.D. v. Minton, 444 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The defendant tobacco companies have, therefore, moved to transfer venue to Duval County under section 47.122, claiming that it is “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice,” to transfer this action to Duval County where this action might also have been brought. As this court has already con...

...concerns about preserving judicial resources does not, by itself, constitute a valid reason for disturbing the plaintiff’s forum choice: 8  The trial court’s discretion to transfer under Section 47.122 is not unbridled and must be predicated upon a showing that the parties or witnesses will suffer substantial inconvenience or undue expense due to the chosen forum....

...ndants, dropping Vector from the complaint. None of the remaining defendants are headquartered in Miami-Dade County. The defendants took Mooney’s deposition and, shortly thereafter, in December 2012, filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2012). The defendants established the following facts in support of their motion to transfer: Mooney currently resides in Duval County; the decedent resided in Duval County for twenty years and has never re...

...she’d like to stay where the case was filed and based upon what I have before me, based [upon] the motion, I’m going to deny the motion for transfer [of] venue.” 14 Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Section 47.122 provides: “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” Section 47.122 itself, as well as our case law interpreting the statute, espouses three distinct factors to consider when determining whether a transfer of venue is proper: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice. A trial court may transfer venue if any of these three factors weigh in favor of the alternate forum. See § 47.122 (using the word “or” to refer to the three factors in the disjunctive)....

...The plaintiff filed his suit in Pinellas County, where Florida Power does business and maintains its corporate headquarters. Venue in that county, of course, is proper. § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (1985). Florida Power filed an unsworn motion for a transfer of venue to Citrus County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985). Section 47.122 provides that, for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...830 reside, the trial judge entered an order transferring venue of the suit to Citrus County. In Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 352 So.2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), we pointed out that the discretion of the trial judge under section 47.122 is not unbridled and must be predicated upon a proper showing of the statutory grounds....

...The allegations of the unsworn motion to dismiss or to transfer were never established by sworn proof before the trial court. We reverse. We agree with the plaintiff that Florida Power failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to its motion for change of venue pursuant to section 47.122. [1] The trial judge had no evidence upon which to base his decision that venue should be transferred on the grounds set forth in section 47.122....

...olice and fire rescue personnel resided in Palm Beach County, and Borozny received medical care in Palm Beach County. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hertz Corp. v. Rentz, 326 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); see § 47.122, Fla....

...n is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents. [3] We also note that the defendant has made no contention, either in the trial court or here, that she was entitled to a venue transfer under a forum non conveniens theory. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), governs that kind of a venue transfer and the time limits under Rule 1.140 are not applicable. Gross v. Franklin, supra, at p. 1049, n. 7. Indeed, the defendant would be hard pressed, based upon the record before us, to make an argument for justifying a transfer under Section 47.122....

...We therefore reverse the trial court's order transferring the action to Hillsborough County and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court made no findings on the motion to transfer venue based on the convenience of the witnesses as provided by section 47.122, and we do not address that issue....

...County or Virginia; and the State Farm claims professionals who handled this claim worked in either Polk County or Virginia. The affidavit also stated that no State Farm claims representatives in Hillsborough County handled any aspect of this claim. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997), allows a change of venue for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...Polk County, on the other hand, was the site of the accident, the place where the Darbys' policy was issued, and the location of the court that will hear the underlying subrogation claim. Based on these factors, the interest of justice supports a change of venue to Polk County under section 47.122....

...James D. Dreyer of Dreyer & Associates, Sarasota, for appellee. HERSEY, Chief Judge. Appellant, Miriam Braun, one of two defendants in a personal injury action, contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion, made pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1987), to change venue from Broward County to Pinellas County....

...The trial court agreed with NationsBank and dismissed Imperatore's claim with prejudice on June 27, 1995, while the first appeal was pending in this court. As for Imperatore's argument on the venue issue, we are unpersuaded by his *935 position. Under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995), a court may transfer venue of an action based on convenience of the parties or in the interest of justice....

...at venue was proper in Leon County, and denied defendants' motions for transfer for improper venue and transfer of venue for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, and the interest of justice. The trial court erred in denying the motions. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, provides that venue may be changed "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." As a general rule, a trial court has wide discretion in determining whether or not venue of a trial should be changed....

...rmed the autopsy on Chavez; Lee County Trauma Services District personnel; Lee Memorial Hospital personnel; physicians from Lee Neurosurgery; and funeral home personnel. Cooper Tire, joined by Ford, moved to transfer venue to Lee County, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...e's principal office is located in Miami, and Cooper Tire's counsel is from Miami. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to transfer venue. This non-final appeal followed. The sole issue for our determination is whether, pursuant to section 47.122, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue....

...1st DCA 2005) (holding that an appellate court reviews the trial court's order denying a motion to transfer venue for abuse of discretion). "[W]here venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff." P.V. Holding *1159 Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So.2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). However, section 47.122 authorizes any court of record to "transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought" for "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." Of the three statutory fact...

...Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to transfer the action from Miami-Dade County to Lee County, Florida. Reversed and remanded with instructions. NOTES [1] Although Martino Tire is a named defendant, it took no position on the motion to transfer venue to Lee County. [2] Section 47.122 provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...Lerner, Miami, Conroy, Simberg, Wilensky & Lewis, Hollywood and Sharon A. Shade, Miami, for appellees. Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The non-final order transferring the venue of the instant negligence/products liability action below from Dade County to Monroe County, Florida, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), is affirmed because, simply stated, there was a reasonable basis in the record for such a decision and, accordingly, no gross abuse of discretion has been shown....

...ugh County. Appellant countered that the Putnam court should transfer the Hillsborough County, arguing: And the Resor 2 case does change the law regarding the venue in paternity action, and does allow the court to consider a change of venue based on 47.122, and what has been popularly known as forum non conveniens, or what, in the interests of justice, for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, is to be relevant, as far [as] transferring a civil action....

...The court finds [Appellant’s] actions to be legal posturing through gamesmanship and an attempt to be clever in two counties .... In its order, the trial court addressed the legal issue Appellant framed and argued it. The court reiterated Appellant’s contention that, based on section 47.122, it could transfer the action to Putnam County to accommodate the convenience of the witnesses....

...ade in Hillsborough County. 4 That was the correct ruling on the argument presented. Assuming Appellant had preserved his argument and not invited the error, we would affirm nevertheless. Although venue in Putnam County was not improper, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes, the trial court had the discretion to transfer the action to Hillsborough County in the interest of justice....

...nue of their negligence action from Hillsborough County to Duval County. They maintain that appellees, Southern Bell and Jiffy Stores, failed to meet their burden to have the action transferred. We reluctantly agree. Venue here was transferred under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989), which allows a court to transfer the venue of a cause for the convenience of the parties or in the interests of justice....

...Levy County, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, and the Department of Environmental Protection. After obtaining waivers of the home venue privilege by the Trust Fund and the Department, Levy County filed a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, to the Circuit Court for Levy County....

...Schlesinger of Simons & Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. MOORE, Judge. This wrongful death action was commenced in Broward County, Florida. The defendant, Florida Power & Light Company, appeals from an order denying its motion for change of venue to Dade County, Florida. *744 Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979) permits the trial court, in the exercise of sound discretion, to change venue for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice....

...The wife filed timely appeal and the decision of the circuit court was reversed in Kern v. Kern, Fla.App. 4th, 1974, 291 So.2d 210, cert. den. 294 So.2d 657. Upon the case being remanded to the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, the wife, through her attorney, filed a motion to change venue as provided in Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, from Palm Beach County to Collier County....

...m Palm Beach County, but he did not do so. See Barley, 427 So.2d at 1141 n. 3. There has been no suggestion that venue would lie in any county other than Alachua or Palm Beach counties. Although section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999) refers to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1999) (authorizing change of venue for "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice"), without mentioning section 47.131, the convenience of the parties does not take precedence over the clear prohibition in section 47.131....

...y, we need not address whether we would reach the same result if we were considering only the relationship between AlliedSignal and the service centers. We also note that we do not have before us any issue of venue based on forum non conveniens. See § 47.122, Fla....

...e County and the proper venue was in Miami-Dade County. The motion did not argue forum non conveniens. At the hearing on the motion, Animals argued, for the first time, that its motion to transfer venue was based on forum non conveniens and sections 47.122 and 47.051, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...Animals’ motion to dismiss was based upon the impropriety of Hall’s venue selection. However, at the hearing; Animals argued transfer of venue based not only on the impropriety of Hall’s selection, but also the convenience of the parties or witnesses. The trial court transferred venue to Miami-Dade County based only on section 47.122, forum non conveniens....

...ument without giving Hall advance notice. See Utilicore Corp. v. Bednarsh, 730 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court could not transfer venue based on forum non conveniens where defendants had not filed motion to transfer under section 47.122, nor had court given advance notice that it desired to entertain claim on its own motion)....

...ffidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.” Eggers, 776 So.2d at 1098 . In order to consider and weigh the convenience of the witnesses under section 47.122, the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimonies....

...Marques, M.D., P.A., Naples HMA, LLC, d/b/a Physicians Regional Medical Center, Ofelia Marin, M.D., KIDZ Medical Services, Inc., Jorge Mujica, M.D., and Quail Emergency Physicians, LLC, defendants below (collectively, “the Appellants”), appeal from a non-final order denying their motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2016)....

...County, Marques P.A. is registered in Collier County, and Naples HMA and Quail Emergency are foreign companies with registered agents in Leon County.1 Appellants, except Naples HMA, filed motions to transfer venue to Collier County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2016) (“the motions”). Naples HMA did not file its own motion to transfer, but instead moved to join in the motions filed by the other Appellants....

...substance (much less the significance) of their anticipated testimony. Appellees filed responses in opposition to each of the motions to transfer, arguing that venue was proper in Miami-Dade County and that Appellants had not met their burden under section 47.122. On July 18, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the motions to transfer venue....

...uires [and] [a]ccordingly, a transfer of venue is not warranted here.” (emphasis in original). This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 6  An order denying a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion....

...ANALYSIS Initially, we note that all the parties agree that venue is proper in both Miami-Dade and Collier counties. “[W]here venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff.” P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Section 47.122, however, authorizes a court to “transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought” for “the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” While the three...

...1st DCA 1983) (noting that “since the quality of testimony by a key witness may well outweigh the quantity of testimony by a number of witnesses testifying to relatively unimportant matters,” the significance of the witnesses’ testimony is relevant to section 47.122)....

...3D16-1920 SALTER, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the order denying the motions of all seven defendants to transfer venue to Collier County, where all three plaintiffs reside and the cause of action indisputably arose. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2016), “Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice,” plainly applies to a case such as this. Facts and Procedural History The following are allegations of f...

...The parents retained counsel in Broward County and Miami-Dade County, who served a notice of intention to initiate litigation and then filed the complaint. All seven defendants filed motions to transfer venue from Miami-Dade County to Collier County under section 47.122 and affidavits in support of those motions....

...And while a plaintiff’s choice of venue is accorded a presumption of validity, that choice is not a “paramount consideration” that cannot be overcome. P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore, 721 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Section 47.122 commands attention to three considerations: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice....

...enue concerns the allocation of scarce judicial resources, particularly juries, as between Miami-Dade and Collier County. See E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., v. Fuzzell, 681 So. 2d 1195, 1197–98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).2 This Court, too, has relied on section 47.122 and the “interest of justice” to support the transfer of a case to another County upon a finding that “a Dade County jury, which is both a scarce and precious resource, should not be burdened with determining a case that has no connection with Dade County.” Westchester Fire Ins....

...per to transfer the action to another venue solely because venue is appropriate there as well. Guntner v. Jennings, 980 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Rather, section 61.13(2)(d) provides that the court may change the venue in accordance with section 47.122, Florida Statutes. That section allows a trial court to transfer an action to any other court in which it could have originally been brought for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice. § 47.122, Fla....

...Appellants claim that venue was proper in Orange County as appellee Haas, Boehm maintained an office there. See §§ 47.011, 47.021 and 47.051, Fla. Stat. (1983). Appellees counter that the court actually transferred venue under the forum non conveniens doctrine, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1983), and hence while venue may have been proper in Orange County, Flagler County was preferable. The order transferring venue does refer to section 47.122, Florida Statutes, the forum non conveniens statute....

...2d DCA 1977). The problem here is that apparently no transcript of the hearing below on appellees' motion was made and this court has no way of knowing what evidence was presented and whether the lower court abused its discretion in transferring venue under section 47.122....

...To the extent Hartford argues on appeal that Attorney Logan does not reside in Palm Beach County, it failed to preserve this claim by raising it below. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer for convenience. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2015), provides as follows and frames the trial court’s analysis of that motion: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...The applicable venue statute provides that in modification of child custody proceedings, venue may be laid where either parent resides with the child or where the final judgment was rendered. § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008). The statute also authorizes a change of venue under Florida's forum non conveniens (FNC) statute. § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2008). The FNC statute permits a trial court to transfer an action on specified grounds but only to a court "in which it might have been brought". § 47.122, Fla....

...Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., JORGENSON, and GODERICH, JJ. PER CURIAM. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to transfer a negligence action from plaintiff's venue choice in Dade County to Monroe County under the forum non conveniens statute, Section 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...of business in Dade County; and Dade County is more convenient to travel to then Monroe County for the out-of-state and out-of-country witnesses—including plaintiff who was rendered a partial quadriplegic by his accident. Under these circumstances, Section 47.122's consideration of "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or ......

...Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami prior to his return to his home in Great Britain. This is plainly not enough to preclude transfer to the site of the accident "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice" under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995) and its federal equivalent, 28 U.S.C....

...f justice required transfer. This case is quite distinct. The trial court's discretion is abused "only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The factors under Section 47.122 and our prior cases support not only Monroe County as a convenient forum but also Dade County as a reasonable venue selection....

...contained in Paragraph 15 of the passenger ticket contract. [1] Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, based on the forum selection clause. This appeal follows. The plaintiff contends that, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2005), the trial court was authorized to transfer the action from the State Court to the Federal Court, and therefore, the trial court erred when it dismissed the action. We conclude that the plaintiff's reliance on section 47.122 is, however, misplaced. Section 47.122 is Florida's forum non conveniens statute and the complaint in this case was dismissed based upon a forum selection clause contained in the passenger ticket contract, not forum non conveniens. Thus, section 47.122 is inapplicable....

...The parties also agree that Juana could have filed her complaint in Dade County where Cruz is a resident, see section 47.021, Florida Statutes (2008), and where the causes of action accrued as St. Anne's is located there, see section 47.051, *1027 Florida Statutes (2008). The forum non conveniens statute, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2008), provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brough...

...5th DCA). . See §§ 47.011, 47.051, Fla.Stat. (1993). . While suit in Orange County may not be "improper," the court still could have granted the motion to change venue "[f|or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...Janis Brustares Keyser of Reid, Ricca & Rigell, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. G. Bart Billbrough of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for appellee. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a non-final order of the trial judge denying a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (forum non conveniens)....

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. Hall and his wife, plaintiffs in an Engle 1 action claiming damages resulting from his allegedly addictive cigarette smoking, appeal from an order transferring the case under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2013) 2 from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court to the Orange County Circuit Court....

...Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006). . "For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record which it might have been brought.” § 47.122, Fla....

...denied, 368 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1979). Where there are multiple defendants, venue lies in the county where any one of the defendants reside. § 47.021, Fla. Stat. (1987). We cannot presume that the trial court relied on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1987), since the defendants' motions failed to show substantial inconvenience or undue expense in plaintiff's choice of forum....

...I think the Supreme Court can [send out supplemental tax bills if the initial roll is too low], but if the Supreme Court can do it, Judge Willis, this court could do it. THE COURT: Not necessarily. They can get away with a lot of things I can't." [10] Section 194.171(1), Fla. Stat. (1973). [11] Fla.R.Civ.Proc. 1.060(b); Section 47.122, Fla....

...failed to pay Strand the commission allegedly due. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying R.C.’s motion to transfer this case to Orange County or Sumter County based on the convenience of the parties and the witnesses. See § 47.122, Fla....

...the evidence to be presented by these witnesses. In Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 541 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122, due to the defendant’s failure to meet its burden of demonstrating the inconvenience....

...their testimony.” Id. [Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) ]. As the Hu court observed, it is critical for this information to be provided to enable the trial court to properly weigh the convenience of all of the key witnesses under section 47.122....

...Spicola, Jr., of Spicola & Larkin, P.A., Tampa, for appellees. ALTENBERND, Judge. The plaintiff, John Christen Corporation, appeals a nonfinal order changing venue in this trade secret and trademark action from Hillsborough County to Dade County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Cami for use in similar restaurants which operate in South Florida as "Seashells." There is no dispute that venue is proper in Hillsborough County. Thus, the action may be transferred only if the defendants prove that a change of venue would be "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." § 47.122, Fla....

...Reversed and remanded. LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] The plaintiff argues that the defendants should be prohibited from filing a motion for change of venue at this late stage of the proceedings. The statute itself contains no time limitation. § 47.122, Fla....

...ate. Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1978); Sempe v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport, Inc., 363 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1979). Moreover, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion under Section 47.122, Fla....

...5th DCA 1998): [A] dismissal based on forum non conveniens, if not evident from the allegations appearing on the face of the complaint, must be supported by record evidence, either in the form of affidavits or live testimony. ... Based upon the rationale of the cases interpreting section 47.122, Florida Statutes and the language of the new Rule 1.061, it appears that the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens rule is the same as the procedure to be followed under the forum non conveniens statute....

...oper court, furnishing all parties, the clerk, and the state attorney of the receiving court a copy of the order of transfer within 5 days. The clerk shall also transmit a certified copy of the file to the receiving court within 5 days. In addition, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: 47.122 Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.-For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...1st DCA 1982) (citing Carroll v. Carroll, 341 So.2d 771, 772 (Fla.1977)). But a court may transfer any civil action “to any other court of record in which it might have been brought” for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interest of justice. § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). See also § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (providing that in modification proceedings “[t]he court may change the venue in accordance with s. 47.122.”)....

...While we sympathize with Former Wife’s arguments, they fail for two main reasons. First, nothing in the order on appeal states that the order was granted based on either of the reasons permitted in the transfer statute. “Prior to granting a change of venue pursuant to section 47.122, a trial court must make a finding of substantial inconvenience or undue expense.” Fast v....

...While the trial court may have envisioned making such a finding based upon the language in the order stating that the court had “considered the request, reviewed the record, and considered all relevant factors[,]” the fact remains that the court did not consider the applicability of section 47.122 in its ruling....

...Second, and more importantly, is the fact that the transfer statute — despite providing reasons a case may be transferred — expressly limits the ability of a court to transfer a case to “any other court *958 of record in which [the proceeding] might have been brought.” § 47.122, Fla....

...sses jurisdiction over the whole case,’ ” including the parties.) (internal citations omitted); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) (codifying Kinney). The limitation of the transfer to “any other court of record in which it might have been brought” in section 47.122, means that any transfer is limited to a county that would have been a proper venue initially....

...Here, once the matter is returned to Leon County and the court resolves the underlying divorce proceeding, it will also determine the related time-sharing issue. Section 61.13(2)(d), will then determine the venue in which any petition to modify the visitation is brought, and that venue can be changed in accordance with section 47.122....

...business in Florida? (c) has its principal place of business in Florida? DELL, C.J., STONE, J., and RAMIREZ, JUAN, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Note: We are referring to transfers to foreign jurisdictions and not to transfers pursuant to section 47.122, Fla....

...David Harris Singer, Hollywood, and Maureen O'Donnell, for appellant. Vernis & Bowling and James R. (Jack) Bridges, Islamorada, for appellees. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendants' motion to transfer venue, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2001), where the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing "before the trial court that either substantial inconvenience or undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses." Safety Nat'l Cas....

...Under section 61.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2007): The circuit court in the county in which either parent and the child reside or the circuit court in which the original award of custody was entered have jurisdiction to modify an award of child custody. The court may change the venue in accordance with s. 47.122....

...If the defense is not raised at the earliest opportunity by motion or answer, it is waived." Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick's Florida Practice and Procedure § 5:8 (2007-08 ed.); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140; Fixel v. Clevenger, 285 So.2d 687, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial court may also transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2007), for the purpose of convenience....

...in the wrong court of any county" or "[w]hen any action is filed laying venue in the wrong county." Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.060 provides that "`[t]ransfers of actions shall be governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060.'" [5] Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2007) provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...Thus, we conclude the trial judge committed reversible *393 error in ordering a transfer of a portion of the case sub judice. Nevertheless, this conclusion does not preclude the trial court, after remand and upon a proper showing, from transferring the entire cause to the circuit court of Broward County pursuant to § 47.122, Fla....

...en resided with the children. A hearing was conducted on this motion but, apparently, without a court reporter. As a result of the hearing, the trial court entered an order transferring the case to the circuit court in Bay County, in accordance with section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Torres moved in the Dade County case for a modification of the judgment granting him custody of Michelle. In the order now under review, the trial judge transferred the modification proceeding to Escambia County pursuant to the forum non conveniens statute, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...odification controversy has been transferred from one county to another for the convenience of the parties and witnesses — particularly that of the little girl who lives in the transferee circuit and whose well-being is the sole issue involved. See § 47.122, Fla....

...Taken in context, this language can mean only that while a "new" circuit cannot unilaterally and ab initio take jurisdiction of a proceeding for modification, that action, once properly commenced in the original court, may *1312 be transferred "when justice would so indicate." Wells, 314 So.2d at 139. That is just what section 47.122 provides, [3] and just what the trial court did here....

...It makes little sense, and less law, to apply a different jurisdictional analysis or to reach a different conclusion because the parties' new home is in a different part of Florida. See Williams v. Starnes, 522 So.2d 469, 473-74 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). The husband also contends that the court abused the discretion conferred by section 47.122 by transferring the modification proceeding under the facts of this case....

...Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Florida Physicians' Ins. Reciprocal, 507 So.2d 778 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Spalding v. Von Zamft, 180 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 47.122 provides: Change of venue; convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice....

...Upon consideration of the appendix filed by the plaintiff, the motion to transfer venue filed by defendant-appellee Transportation Equipment Specialists, Inc. asserted both improper venue and a request for transfer of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...witnesses were located there, and that the insurance policy was issued there. See §§ 47.011, .051. Alternatively, State Farm asserted that a venue change was proper "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." § 47.122....

...appeal. East Coast’s motion is therefore denied. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, J„ Concurs. ALTENBERND, J., Concurs with opinion. . Although East Coast did not expressly seek a transfer of venue based on convenience to the parties or witnesses pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2010), its motion was similar in scope....

...Cole and Lissette Gonzalez, for appellees. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Olga Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to transfer venue and transferring the action to Palm Beach County, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2017), which provides: “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been b...

...The trial court’s order contained no findings. The burden was upon defendants to establish substantial inconvenience to the parties or to the witnesses. As we held in Taylor v. DaSilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1162-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981): Under Section 47.122 ....

...In addition, none of the defendants reside in Polk County. Most of them live in nearby Orange County, where the venture has its sole office. The defendants also requested a transfer of the action to Orange County on the basis of forum non conveniens. See § 47.122, Fla....

transfer venue for an abuse of discretion. ‘ Section 47.122[, Florida Statutes (2009),] governs the transfer

...Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mason's motion to change venue and remand this matter for further action consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The motion was filed pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2006).

whether venue should be transferred pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995) ,1 In February 1996

...physical and emotional hardship if required to travel to Charlotte County for the trial of the case; and, further, found that for the convenience of the parties, and in the interest of justice, the venue should remain in Sarasota County pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes....

...Section 47.011, Florida Statutes, provides in essential part: ... Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located... . [Emphasis supplied]. According to the authority contained in Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, a change of venue may be granted by the trial court for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice and the cause transferred to another court in which it might have been brought....

...Based on our interpretation and construction of the statutory law applicable, and in light of the factual circumstances presented in this case, we hold that the instant action could have been brought only in Charlotte County and could not have been properly brought in Sarasota County. Therefore, we submit, Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, does not control this case and it was error for the trial court to have denied appellants' motion for change of venue on authority of said statutory law....

...lot could correct the problem, but instead allowed for a single failure of the system to cause the complete loss of control over the aircraft. 4  Legal Analysis Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2015), provides: “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” Section 47.122, as well as the case law interpreting the statute, identifies three distinct factors to consider when determining whether to transfer venue: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) in the interest of justice. The trial court may transfer venue if it finds that any of these factors weigh in favor of the alternate forum. “The decision to transfer venue based upon Section 47.122 is one which is within the sound discretion of the court, and the party contesting the [trial court’s venue decision] must show an abuse of discretion in order to successfully challenge the court’s determination.” Burger King Corp....

...The affidavit also set forth the inconvenience of litigating the lawsuit in Miami-Dade County where none of its witnesses, company, or documents are located. Thus, the record supports the trial court’s order transferring the lawsuit to Indian River County based on all three of the factors identified in section 47.122: the convenience of the parties; the convenience of the witnesses; and in the interest of justice. In fact, this Court has held in other similar cases that it was an abuse of discretion to not have transferred the case....

...BARFIELD, Chief Judge. In a suit brought by the daughter of a deceased smoker against the manufacturers and the retailer [1] of cigarettes allegedly smoked by her father, appellants challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Bob Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). *854 The trial court’s oral pronouncement suggests that the court believed venue should be transferred because Miami-Dade County was an inconvenient forum. The defendants had not filed a motion to transfer under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997), 2 nor had the court given advance notice that it desired to entertain such a claim on its own motion....

...Under the rules, this would more properly be described as a motion to dismiss for improper venue. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(3); Bruce J. Berman, Florida Civil Procedure ¶ 140.4[2][c], at 111 (1998). . Transfer for convenience within Florida is governed by section 47.122....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 47.122, Fla....

is filed to change venue in accordance with section 47.122. That venue statute allows the court to change

...Reciprocal, 507 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So.2d *44 614, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

consideration of any motion properly filed under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995) or the forum non conveniens

...ary findings for the change in venue, we reverse. In this case, venue was proper in both Collier County and Suwannee County. [1] However, Nelson sought to have the case transferred to Suwannee County on the basis of the forum non conveniens statute. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2008), provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." [2] Prior to granting a change in venue pursuant to section 47.122, a trial court must make a finding of substantial inconvenience or undue expense....

...Stat. (2008). Venue was also proper in Suwannee County because Nelson resided there with the parties' minor daughter. See id. [2] See also § 61.13(2)(d) (providing that in modification proceedings, "[t]he court may change the venue in accordance with s. 47.122").

...omary business, and none of the foreign corporate defendants has an agent or other representative in that county. Hampton also said plaintiffs presence here is no basis for venue. This is not the stuff of which a motion pursuant to section 47.101 or section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1983) is made, as the corporate appellees have urged....

...1 Appellants presented overwhelming evidence in this negligent security case showing the incident at issue took place in Palm Beach County on property located in Palm Beach County. Moreover, all the parties and nearly all the witnesses are located in Palm Beach County, and all of the factors enumerated in section 47.122, Florida Statutes, weighed strongly in favor of transfer. ———————————————————————————————————— 1 The nonfinal order fixes the locus of the action in Broward Coun...

...reviewing a trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss for improper venue or forum non conveniens); Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Huber v....

not agree. The forum non conveniens statute, F.S. 47.122,2 F.S.A., was enacted subsequent to F.S. 47.163

...allege, caused their injuries. It is the defendants’ contention on appeal that the trial court erred in denying their motion to transfer the cause from Dade County to Lee County because of improper venue and under the forum non conveniens statute, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1979); Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So.2d 950 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); (4) appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the transfer, Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., supra; section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Laliberty, 506 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Coggin Pontiac v. Putnam, Auto Sales, Inc., 278 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to the Fowlers’ right to seek transfer of this action under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993), based upon the convenience of the parties and the witnesses....

...69-662 was taken by the plaintiffs from that order. At the time the order of June 30, 1969 was entered there had become effective (on June 6, 1969) an act of the 1969 legislature (c. 69-83) entitled “An Act relating to venue; amending chapter 47, Florida Statutes, by adding section 47.122; authorizing change of venue for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice; providing an effective date.” Section 47.122, added by that amendment, reads as follows: “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been br...

...This ruling would not preclude the trial court, after remand, from considering the propriety of transferring the entire “civil action” to the circuit court of Broward County, upon a proper showing therefor consistent with the provisions of said statute, § 47.122 Fla.Stats., F.S.A....

...The trial court determined that because the letter contained a general denial of allegations made in Stopa's complaint, it should be treated as a waiver of service of process. Because the trial court sua sponte transferred venue of the action based on forum non conveniens pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020), without first providing the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard, we reverse that portion of the trial court's order as explained herein....

...Orange County, the law firm was located there, and the causes of action accrued there. No other statute was cited in the motion, nor did McGrath and McGrath P.A. argue that venue should be transferred pursuant to forum non conveniens as set forth in section 47.122....

...The trial court denied McGrath and McGrath P.A.'s motion to transfer venue based on section 47.011, noting that venue was proper in Pinellas County. However, the trial court then sua sponte transferred venue from Pinellas County to Orange County based on forum non conveniens, explaining that section 47.122 permits a change of venue "for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." The court explained that all of the defendants resided in Orange County, the defendants' two anticipated witnesses resided in Orange County, and many of Stopa's claims involved actions which occurred in Orange County. ANALYSIS Section 47.122 permits a trial court to transfer a civil action to any other court wherein it could have been brought based on "the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." "A trial court may sua sponte raise the question of whether venue should be 4 transferred to another county under section 47.122 for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice." McDaniel Rsrv. Realty Holdings, LLC v....

...Realty Holdings, LLC, 39 So. 3d at 507, 511 (explaining that where the defendant filed a motion to transfer venue based on improper venue selection but failed to assert forum non conveniens pursuant to section 5 47.122, "the trial court erred in entertaining such a claim on its own motion without giving the plaintiff advance notice"); cf....

...issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice." Hall, 171 So. 3d at 218 (quoting Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). "In order to consider and weigh the convenience of the witnesses under section 47.122, the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimonies." Id....

...Equilease Corp., 471 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The cause is remanded without prejudice to the defendants to move, by appropriate motion, for a change of venue on grounds of forum non-conveniens. See Breen. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

County under the forum non conveniens statute, Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979). Kelly-Springfield

...ORFINGER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. 1 We note that upon a sufficient showing, the circuit court is empowered to transfer the case to another proper venue for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice. See § 47.122, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Levy v. Hawk’s Cay, Inc., 505 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Peterson, Howell and Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 47.122, Fla....

denying the motion to transfer venue under section 47.122.”).

...The primary issue presented on this appeal of that order is whether the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) is a governmental entity entitled to the venue privilege of being sued only at the site of its headquarters. We hold it is not and that the order may not be otherwise sustained as a proper transfer under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...We therefore conclude that the order of transfer under review may not be sustained by the governmental privilege asserted by the FIGA. 3 The appellee contends, however, that the order of transfer should be upheld on the alternative ground that it was properly entered pursuant to Section 47.122, Fla....

...Tallahassee, Florida.” Even if this statement had been sworn to, as is required to support such a motion, see Magee v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 366 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), it is clear that it does not justify a transfer to Leon County under Section 47.122....

...Under these circumstances, a change of venue is improper. Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Associates, Inc., 338 So.2d 896, 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) is determinative: “Finally, attempts by defendant to support the trial court’s ruling on the doctrine of ‘forum non conveniens’ under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, are not persuasive....

...st be resolved by an evidentiary hearing, unless the complaint shows on its face that venue is improper.”). In doing so, we note that considerations inherent in a motion to transfer venue on convenience grounds are not at issue here. See § 47.122, Fla....

...Upon consideration of the appendix filed by the plaintiff, the motion to transfer venue filed by defendant-appellee Transportation Equipment Specialists, Inc. asserted both improper venue and a request for transfer of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...For the following reasons the order of transfer, pursuant to Rule 1.060(b), is affirmed. The thrust of the appellant’s argument is that notwithstanding the plaintiff’s conces *1219 sion that venue had been improperly laid in Dade County the trial court should have transferred the ease to Indian River County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981) (authorizing change of venue for the convenience of parties or in the interest of justice)....

...per in Monroe County. The trial court, therefore, properly interpreted rule 1.060(b) in correcting the mistake in venue pursuant to the plaintiff’s selection and refraining from ruling on the individual defendants’ motion to transfer pursuant to section 47.122....

...The State persuasively argues, and Kotecki concedes, that section 47.131 does not apply to criminal cases. Chapter 47 covers topics such as venue in civil actions against contractors and corporations and actions on promissory notes. See §§ 47.011, .021, .051-061; see also § 47.122 ("For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.") (emphasis added)....

...but the plaintiffs subsequently moved to Lake County. *469 An action may be transferred to anywhere it could have originally been brought for the convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, or in the interest of justice. See Fla. Stat. § 47.122 (2000)....

...provided no evidence to support this basis for a transfer. See Resor v. Welling, 44 So. 3d 656, 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (reversing order transferring venue based on forum non conveniens because Appellant did not file affidavits or evidence to meet his “burden of 4 See § 47.122, Fla....

...We can think of none, and therefore we think it should be applied. Cf. Dubose v. Harpe, 239 N.C. 672 , 80 S.E.2d 454 (1954). Having held that the order appealed must be reversed, we do not reach appellant’s second point which urges the application of forum non conveniens. See F.S.A. § 47.122....

PER CURIAM. Gary L. Jacobs appeals an order transferring venue to Lee County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...The transcript indicates that all parties operated under the assumption that venue was permissible in Lee County. The possibility that Lee County was not a proper venue was not an issue raised before the trial court, and we decline to entertain that claim for the first time on appeal. Second, a motion to transfer under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court....

should be transferred to another county under section 47.122 for the convenience of parties or witnesses

...Chidnese, of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for Appellants. Ian C. White and Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellees. COHEN, J. AHG Tax Credit Fund XVIII, LLC, et al., appeal the trial court’s nonfinal order denying their motion to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2015). Appellants argue that their motion to transfer should have been granted to consolidate this suit with ongoing litigation in Alachua County....

...defendants and Wells Fargo, where it remains pending.3 The issue in this appeal is whether these two actions, based on separate agreements and involving different parties, should be consolidated to avoid possibly inconsistent verdicts and conserve judicial resources. Section 47.122 allows a trial court to transfer a civil action to any venue where the action might have originally been brought “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” Where, as here, venue is proper...

...We find that the court’s order of dismissal was an indirect way of avoiding this Court’s opinion in Advanced Diagnostic Group v. Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company, 321 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Because appellant complied with the order, and dismissal was not warranted on the grounds set forth for transfer in section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2021), we reverse. Appellant, a medical provider, under an assignment of PIP benefits, sued appellee insurance company in Broward County for breach of contract for failing to pay invoices for the treatment of app...

...had agents and representatives to transact its customary business in Broward County. Appellant also argued that the court’s transfer of venue based on “relevant connection” and convenience was not predicated upon a proper showing of the statutory grounds found in section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2021), and case law....

...ismissed the case, for “failure to fully comply with the court’s order[.]” Appellant appeals the dismissal. On appeal, appellant argues that it did comply with the court’s order, and the court could not transfer or dismiss the case under section 47.122 in any event....

...id the holding of Advanced Diagnostic Group v. Ocean Harbor Casualty 2 Insurance Co., 321 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), issued a month prior to the dismissal in this case. As we stated in Ocean Harbor: Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020), provides that the court can transfer venue “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” Because the plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumed to be c...

...Because the cause of action accrued in Martin County and because the parties and witnesses, as well as the allegedly damaged property, for which a jury-view is sought, are also in Martin County the suit should proceed there. The trial judge abused the discretion afforded by section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1987) in refusing to transfer venue....

...ition of the judgment appealed. Florida East Coast Ry. v. Rouse, 194 So.2d 260 (Fla.1966). Section 47.163 not being applicable we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s petition for change of venue based upon Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...filed by the former wife. Venue was proper in Duval County because both parties reside there, see § 47.011, Fla. Stat., and transfer—not dismissal—is the proper remedy where the trial court determines that there is a more convenient forum, see § 47.122, Fla....

motion for change of venue was filed pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977), which allows changes

...Barkett Computer Services, Inc., 311 So.2d 730 (Fla.4th D.C.A.1975); Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, 136 So.2d 377 (Fla.1st D.C.A.1962). Therefore, the order here under review is reversed with directions to proceed with the cause. Reversed. . The applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Section 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...Id. First Church of Nazarene of Gainesville, Fla., Inc. v. Site Concepts, Inc., 265 So. 3d 641, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “[T]here are three statutory factors a court considers in determining whether to grant a motion [to transfer venue] pursuant to section 47.122[, Fla....

complaint.” We find no abuse of discretion. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes transfers

to Mabie not supported by facts in record). Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1999), allows for such an

...plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice. The decision to grant or deny the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2005), also plays a part in the decision making process....

...ave been brought.” Forum non conveniens, by its very nature, of course, encompasses both the statute and the rule. See Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Courts have, accordingly, followed the same general procedures in applying section 47.122 and Rule 1.061. See Botton v. Elbaz, 722 So.2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This court has held that under section 47.122 a plaintiffs forum selection is presumptively correct, and the burden is on the opposing party to show either that undue expense or substantial inconvenience to the parties or witnesses requires a change....

...Nova University, Inc., 397 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Because there are insufficient facts upon which we can determine whether there was an abuse of discretion in changing venue as to the individual employees, we remand for consideration of the factors enunciated in Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270 pertaining to separate trials....

PER CURIAM. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to dismiss a cross-claim under the forum non conveniens doctrine embodied in section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989)....

transferring the venue of this action under section 47.-122, Florida Statutes (1981), is affirmed. However

...4th DCA 1987), remand to permit the lower court to consider such proper evidence as may be presented by the parties as to the most convenient forum for the trial of this case. The convenience of the witnesses has been described as the single most important factor under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...This is an appeal from a non-final order, transferring a personal injury action from Indian River County to Osceola County. We affirm, having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the change of venue sought by a defendant pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...Plaintiff, a Broward County resident, sued Nationwide in Broward County, alleging she was injured by an uninsured motorist who collided with the rear of her *903 car in Pennsylvania. Nationwide moved to transfer venue to Pennsylvania for convenience of the witnesses under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2001); however, it submitted no affidavits stating that there were any witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a Florida trial....

PER CURIAM. Appellant/plaintiff, Grafco Realty, Inc., takes this interlocutory appeal to challenge an order which granted a motion for change of venue and transferred the cause from Broward to Palm Beach County pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979). We affirm. Section 47.122, the change of venue statute, by its very language, reposes broad discretion in the trial court....

...Vaux instituted separate, subsequently consolidated, domestic actions against each other in the Dade County Circuit Court. Two months later, after extensive activity in the Dade County proceedings, the husband moved to transfer the cases to St. Lucie County under the forum non conveniens statute, Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...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....

declining to change the venue of this cause under Section 47.-122, Florida Statutes (1979). Hertz Corp. v. Rentz

order is fundamentally erroneous on its face. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2016), which addresses forum

...;Ji j{s i(i Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to proceed with the matter. 1 Reversed and remanded, with directions. . The applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as recognized by § 47.122, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was not presented in the trial court nor is the applicability of the doctrine reflected in the proceedings revealed by the record on appeal.

...Stat. § 47.051 because [the insurer] has an agent or other representative in Broward County.” In 2024, the insurer filed a motion to transfer venue of the insured’s action from Broward County to Polk County. The insurer’s motion relied upon section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2023): “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” The insu...

...venue allegation, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the venue selection is proper. There are three statutory factors a court considers in determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, [Florida Statutes]: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice. While the trial court should consider all three of these factors, the convenien...

...abuse of discretion.’” Pep Boys v. Montilla, 62 So. 3d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Tomac of Fla., Inc. v. Gunn’s Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc., 17 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). In deciding whether to transfer an action pursuant to section 47.122, a court considers three statutory factors: “(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice.” Ford Motor Co....

...It challenges the denial of that motion in this nonfinal appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). We reverse. The parties agree that although Universal did not raise the defense of improper venue, it could still seek to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2013)....

...See Fla. Health Scis. Ctr. v. Elsenheimer, 952 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). That statute sets forth three bases for transferring venue: (1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the interest of justice. § 47.122. Although Universal's motion raised the three statutory considerations, the circuit court did not address them....

...rial. Your motion to transfer venue as to Universal and Steven Long, the original lawsuit, is denied. A circuit court may not ignore the three pertinent factors when deciding whether a venue transfer under section 47.122 is proper. For example, the court in Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O'Neill, 314 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), held that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied a section 47.122 motion while failing to -2- recognize or address the convenience of the parties or the witnesses....

...Significantly, Long lives in Brevard, and certainly that county would not be inconvenient for him. Universal's headquarters and sole office are in Broward County. The most important consideration when determining whether to grant a section 47.122 motion is the convenience of the witnesses....

...Many of the witnesses identified by the parties in this lawsuit will no doubt be witnesses in the Brevard suits, including the named defendants in Long's other suits and in Universal's third-party action. The court abused its discretion when refusing to grant Universal's motion pursuant to section 47.122....

...Brady, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 750 ; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So.2d 446 ; Executive Motors, Inc. v. Citizens National Bank of Orlando, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 93 ; Rule 4.2(d), F.A.R. Compare Fixel v. Clevenger, Fla.App.1973, 285 So.2d 687 ; § 47.122, Fla.Stat.

witnesses or in the interest of justice . . .” Section 47.-122, Florida Statutes (1977); rather, the order

that there is a more convenient forum, see section 47.122, Florida Statutes. Moreover, abatement—not

...e., default in payment, accrued there, the place of payment being the residence of the plaintiff-payee, Broward County. Saf-T-Clean, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation, 197 So.2d 8 (Fla.1967). Defendants were not entitled to a transfer of the action to Orange County under Fla.Stat. § 47.122 (1973) since that was the county of their residence and plaintiff did not consent....

this cause “in the interest of justice” under Section 47.-122, Florida Statutes (1985) so as to have related

ruling on a motion to transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”);

Verified Motion for Change of Venue pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, upon authority of: Hughes

that the trial judge abused his discretion under § 47.122, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., in denying the defendant’s

ORFINGER, J. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to transfer venue due to forum non conveniens, section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...existence of available uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and to pay her certain UM benefits due under her automobile insurance policy following an accident. Sosnowski’s action was filed in the circuit court of Seminole County, Florida. Pursuant to section 47.122, State Farm moved to transfer venue to Broward County due to forum non conveniens....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 47.122, F.S.A....

...As an aside we add that the trial court, in the face of the motion to transfer on grounds of forum non conveniens, was obligated to consider whether it would be convenient and in the interest of justice to try the case in Dade County even if the Authority failed to qualify as a governmental entity. See § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...Court for Seminole County, James J. DeKleva, Judge. Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant. Kurt T. Koehler, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. The trial court’s order transferring venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2021), is affirmed....

...the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellee’s motion to transfer venue. See Cohen v. Scarnato, 270 So. 3d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to a trial court’s order transferring venue under section 47.122). We do, however, remand this case to the trial court with directions that the court amend its order to assess accrued costs against Appellee....

...ments. Philip Staton moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of failure to join indispensable parties and failure to state a cause of action. He also sought a dismissal of the complaint with leave to file in a more convenient venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1999), and a dismissal for forum non conveniens pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a). The trial court denied the motion in its entirety. In this appeal, Philip Staton challenges only the denial of his motion regarding venue and forum non conve-niens. The trial court properly denied the motion based on section 47.122; therefore, we affirm that ruling without further discussion....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1983). Houchins v. Florida

...in Pinellas County for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable accounting. ILD appeals a nonfinal order that denies its motion to change venue to St. John's County, Florida. Because it appears that the trial court did not consider ILD's argument for a transfer of venue on the basis of section 47.122, Florida Statutes, (2013), we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the argument that St....

...John's County and asserted there was no proper statutory basis for venue in Pinellas County under section 47.011, Florida Statutes (2013). In doing so, they argued that the "place of payment rule" did not apply. In the alternative, they argued under section 47.122 that the trial court should transfer venue to St. John's County because it is a more convenient forum. ILD filed a motion to change venue to St. John's County based only on section 47.122 and asserted that the trial court should exercise its discretion and transfer the venue to St....

...three defendants appealed, but the appeal as to Lewis and Brooks was subsequently dismissed because they were dismissed with prejudice from the trial court action. Thus, the only issue is the denial of ILD's motion that sought a transfer of venue under section 47.122. Although the trial court denied ILD's motion on the basis of the "place of payment venue rule," that rule deals with the issue of whether venue is proper under section 47.011 with respect to where the cause of action accrued....

...2d DCA 2013). The statute under which ILD sought to transfer venue provides that "[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought." § 47.122. The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether to transfer venue under section 47.122. See RJG Envtl., Inc. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The trial court either failed to rule on ILD's argument under section 47.122 or erred in denying ILD's motion based on a factor that is applicable to an analysis under section 47.011 and not section 47.122....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 47.122, Fla....

County for the convenience of the parties under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995). After consideration

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Shortly after the action was filed, Armor and SMA filed motions, supported by affidavits of some of the defendants and witnesses, seeking to have the case transferred to Volusia County, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes. The personal representative opposed the motion, noting that one of the corporate defendants, Armor, had its corporate headquarters in Miami-Dade County. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes, for abuse of discretion....

...Courts consider three factors in deciding whether to grant a motion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens: “(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interest of justice.” Ford Motor Co. v. James, 33 So. 3d 91, 92–⁠93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see § 47.122, Fla....

...' This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s action seeking uninsured motorist *798 benefits, with leave to amend, for failure to join an indispensable party; and transferring the action from the First Judicial Circuit to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1993), “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” We conclude that the estate of the deceased uninsured motorist is not an indispensable party to the action; and that, on t...

consideration of the factors enunciated in section 47.122, Florida Statutes, and rule 1.270, Florida

PER CURIAM. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979) [forum non conveniens], transferring plaintiffs’ personal injury cause of action to the county where the accident which caused the injury occurred, when 95 of the 99 witnesses listed by the plaintiffs live ou...

...Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Peterson, Howell and Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Sec. 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977)....

PER CURIAM. The trial court denied a motion filed pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1981), to transfer venue from Palm Beach County to Dade County....

County was an inconvenient forum for them. See § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (1993). At the hearing on the motion

...incipal headquarters. 1 MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . We do not by this opinion, however, preclude the parties from moving for the trial court’s consideration of changing venue of the entire action to Leon County for purposes of convenience. See Section 47.122, Fla.Stat....

...State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company properly and commendably confesses error, conceding that the trial court should have transferred, rather than dismissed, the action. 1 We, therefore, reverse the July 19, 2021 order and remand for further proceedings in this matter. Reversed and remanded. 1 See § 47.122, Fla....

...Thomas Tompkins, Marcia Tompkins, and Foley and Lardner, defendants in the action below, have each filed separate appeals of the trial judge’s order changing venue of the action from Osceola County to Orange County. We consolidate the appeals and affirm the trial court. The issues are these: Does section 47.122, Florida Statutes, authorize this change of venue and, if so, is the judge’s order supported by the record? Section 47.122 provides: For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...ies,” but they do not contain venue provisions. The trial court’s decision to transfer venue to Hillsborough County constitutes error for two reasons, the first of which is that venue for the Polk County suit does not lie in Hillsborough County. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1987), permits the transfer of venue to a court in which the suit “might have been brought.” Venue in actions against domestic corporations is governed by section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides t...

...the vehicle in which Ken Taylor was riding. The accident occurred in Osceola County. Ken, who was severely burned, was taken to a hospital in Orlando County and within twenty-four hours transferred to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Dade County. Under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979), 2 a defendant seeking a change of venue bears the burden of proving that substantial inconvenience or undue expense to the parties would result from trial in the forum chosen by the plaintiff and that a change is therefore required for the convenience of the parties or witnesses....

...Reiner, II, Miami, for appellees Carlos Mercenari and Guillermo Romo. Before SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. ROTHENBERG, J. The defendant, Regions Financial Corp. ("Regions"), appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to transfer venue to Bay County, Florida, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...This is an appeal by Regions Bank of a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court order denying the Bank's motion to transfer this case to the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Bay County, Florida, filed pursuant to Florida's statutory forum non-conveniens provision, section 47.122 of the Florida Statutes (2010)....

...the time in question knew or had reason to know he was “drunk or intoxicated in direct violation of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991).” On June 13,1995, Post 10164 filed a motion to transfer venue from Putnam to Marion County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes....

...Additionally, Post 10164 pointed out that Judge Angel from Marion County was familiar with the case and that Starita was “forum shopping.” Finally, Post *522 10164 maintained that trying the case in Marion rather than Putnam would not be inconvenient for the witnesses or parties. Starita countered that section 47.122 only allowed a venue change where the movant could demonstrate a substantial inconvenience/undue expense or where the forum chosen by the plaintiff would not afford a fair and impartial decision....

properly maintained there and not Broward County. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985) provides that venue

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Josephine Monroe appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Argenis Duran appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. VIP Glass, LLC a/a/o Lerroy Vidaurri appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Sandra Ardley appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Bernice Walker appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Lendell Welcome appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Taisha Colon appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Mary Acres appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Latoya Townsend appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v....

...Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Patricia Stroman-Goins appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v....

Company’s, motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). Based on our recent

...“Any action taken in a family law case before March 16, 2017, that conformed to the then- effective rules or statutes governing family law cases, will be regarded as valid during the pendency of the litigation.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.005. On appeal, Wife relies on cases citing section 47.122, Florida Statutes, but section 47.122 is inapplicable. Section 47.122 governs changes of venue for convenience within Florida. See § 47.122, Fla....

...by Methodist Hospital Foundation, Inc. (Methodist), by virtue of a management contract between Methodist and the Baker County Hospital Authority. Methodist, upon its assertion of inconvenience, moved for a change of venue to Baker County pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979), 1 and argues that while the statute is discretionary, in this instance the judge abused his discretion....

...ty, or that at least the claims against UF and Shands be severed and transferred to Ala-chua County. Shands also filed a Motion to Transfer Venue. Shands sought the transfer of venue from Palm Beach County to Alachua County based on Florida Statutes section 47.122, addressing forum non conveniens....

...See § 47.051, Fla. Stat. (2020) (“Actions against foreign corporations doing business in this state shall be brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other representative . . . .”). Rather, Insurer sought the venue transfer under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020), asserting that venue in Alachua County was more convenient. Section 47.122 provides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any 1 The complaint sought damages that exceeded $500 but did not exceed $2500, exclusive of court costs, interest, and attorney’s fees. 2 court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” § 47.122, Fla....

...Second, the court determined that the interest of justice supported the venue transfer so that a jury in Seminole County would not be burdened with a case that had no connection to Seminole County. 3 ANALYSIS— Under section 47.122, Florida Statutes, a plaintiff’s forum selection is presumptively correct....

...court, is also precluded from considering as fact unproven statements documented only by an attorney.’” (quoting Blimpie Cap. Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza Partners, Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994))). 5 47.122], the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.”)....

...previously mentioned, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in transferring venue for the convenience of the witnesses. See Cohen v. Scarnato, 270 So. 3d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (providing that an order transferring venue under section 47.122 is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Glass Company next argues that, absent the venue transfer being necessary for the convenience of the witnesses, it is an abuse of discretion to transfer venue under section 47.122 solely for the interest of justice....

...Fourth District wrote: A court’s desire to conserve judicial and jury resources (or to reduce its own docket for judicial convenience), standing alone, is not a proper ground to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...Id. at 774. Although we, like our sister courts, question whether a trial court’s desire to control its own docket, standing alone, and in the face of a plaintiff’s otherwise proper venue choice, can support a transfer of venue under section 47.122, we find it unnecessary to directly answer this question....

...the court must hon- or the father’s choice. This does not mean, however, that the mother may not move to transfer venue “to any other court of record in which it might have been brought” for “the convenience of the parties or. witnesses.” § 47.122, Fla....

...ch County. See Fla. Fam.. L.R.P. 12.010(a)(1). The rules endorse the principle of placing related matters before the same family court judge unless impractical. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.003(a)(1). The court should consider these rules, in addition to section 47.122, Florida Statutes, permitting a change of venue “for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice[.]” We therefore affirm but remand for the court to consider a transfer of venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes....

record in which it might have been brought.” Section 47.122, Fla.Stat. (1991). This case might have been

...Beach County office and that the underlying automobile accident occurred in Palm Beach County. At no point in time did Insurer oppose Medical Provider’s choice of venue. The court ultimately issued an order sua sponte transferring venue to Palm Beach County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020)....

...In so doing, the court concluded that the case had “no relevant connection to Broward County” and “that in the interests of justice, the Broward Judiciary, which is a scarce and precious resource, should not be burdened with determining a case that has no connection to Broward County.” This appeal follows. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020), provides that the court can transfer venue “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” Because the plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumed to be correct, transfer i...

...transfer venue solely on its desire to conserve judicial and jury resources. A court’s desire to conserve judicial and jury resources (or to reduce its own docket for judicial convenience), standing alone, is not a proper ground to transfer venue under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). See R.J....

...ty. 1 The circuit court granted their requests. It is not clear from either the motions or the written order whether the basis for the transfer was improper venue under section 47.011, Florida Statutes (2001), or the convenience of the parties under section 47.122....

...nal parties. We caution that this decision does not pass upon the substantive or procedural propriety of the cross-claim itself. Furthermore, it does not concern a transfer of the entire case to Orange County under the forum non conveniens doctrine, § 47.122, Fla.Stat....

justice, the court was empowered to change venue, Section 47.122, and here the court did so to consolidate the

in refusing to transfer this action pursuant to § 47.122, Fla.Stat. for the convenience of the parties

...Karyn Lee Bond appeals the denial of her oral motion to transfer venue because of inconvenience of the parties. Because she did not file a sworn, written motion with supporting affidavits, we affirm the trial court’s denial of her motion. A motion based on section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2002), must be accompanied by sworn proof....

...Contracting Company, Inc. (AWA). We affirm the trial court’s order. Rife, as personal representative of the Estate of Joel Rife (the decedent), filed a wrongful death complaint in Duval County against AWA. AWA subsequently filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...(Emphasis added.) As the appellate court with jurisdiction over the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, we have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the order transferring venue. See id. An order transferring venue pursuant to section 47.122 is reviewed for abuse of discretion....

...ich gave rise to the action occurred in Dade County. The trial court ruled that venue should be transferred to Bay County due to the interrelatedness of the actions and the fact that the Bay County action was instituted first. The plaintiffs appeal. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1989), provides for the transfer of cases to a different venue “for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” The decision to transfer venue based upon this statute is “one wit...

So.2d 1046, 1049 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See § 47.-122, Fla.Stat. (1983). Thus, the trial court did not

...ently be litigated in another state. That case reached the supreme court after this court certified a question of great public importance. In a footnote, we pointed out that the case involved a transfer to a foreign jurisdiction, and did not involve section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1994), which addresses intrastate changes of venue based on the convenience of parties or witnesses....

...at 88, n. 3 . We conclude that nothing in Kinney suggests that the supreme court intended that the trial court use this analysis in determining whether a motion for change of venue within Florida is appropriate. The second district went on to apply section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1995): For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...Young, 690 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1997), the first district also rejected the use of a Kinney analysis for intrastate transfers based on forum non conveniens. Kinney, as we explained earlier, did not involve intrastate transfers, which are governed by section 47.122....

...Broward County, that all doctors who would testify reside in Miami, and that plaintiff is currently a patient in Miami. We conclude, based on these facts, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to change venue under section 47.122. Brown, 690 So.2d 1377 . Affirmed. SHAHOOD, J., and REYES, ISRAEL U., Associate Judge, concur. . We are not certifying direct conflict with Westchester, because the Westchester panel did correctly cite section 47.122, Florida Statutes, which applies to intrastate transfers, and did not, at least on the face of the opinion, go through the Kinney!Rule 1.061 analysis....

PER CURIAM. The trial court’s order transferring venue to Orange County is affirmed. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, provides that for the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought....

...Aaron Daniel, for appellee PJT Holdings, LLC. Before EMAS, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Albert Santoro appeals an order denying his motion to transfer venue from Miami-Dade County to Palm Beach County based on forum non conveniens, pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2023). See § 47.122, Fla....

...3D24-1580 GOODEN, J. (specially concurring). I concur as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue. I write separately to address our precedent not following the plain text of the statute. Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, simply states: “For the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.�...

...Appellant MRI Associates of Brandon, LLC, as assignee of Julia Stuart (“MRI”), appeals the order of the Volusia County Court granting Appellee GEICO General Insurance Company’s (“GEICO”) motion to transfer venue to Hillsborough County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2022), the forum non conveniens statute....

...GEICO applied the correct reimbursement formula in disallowing the remaining balance of MRI’s claim. GEICO concedes that it made the partial payment on MRI’s claim and does not assert that it is disputing the validity of the claim itself. Analysis Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, prescribes, “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” The parties acknowledge that venue is proper in both Volusia and Hillsborough Counties.1 However, in applying section 47.122, a plaintiff’s choice of venue is “presumptively correct,” and GEICO had the burden of proof in establishing a basis for transfer under section 47.122....

...5th DCA 2010)). Decisions granting or denying such transfer are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. (citing McDaniel Rsrv. Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So. 3d 504, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). A party seeking a change of venue under section 47.122 must “submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.” At Home Auto Glass, 345 So....

...Mills of Casey W. Mills, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants. Gabriel Scarnato, Palm Coast, pro se. PER CURIAM. In this non-final appeal, we review an order transferring two consolidated trust disputes from Broward County to Flagler County under section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2018)....

...The trial court recognized that Broward County was a proper venue for the trust disputes but decided that they should be transferred “in the interest of justice and judicial economy” because Flagler County was the only proper venue for the administration of Portia’s estate. The daughter and granddaughter appealed. Section 47.122 provides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” The party seeking...

...Even after this showing is made, a court may transfer venue only to a court where the action could have been filed initially. See McGee v. McGee, 145 So. 3d 955, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Vitale v. Vitale, 994 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We generally review an order transferring venue under section 47.122 for an abuse of discretion....

...Browning-Ferris Industries Chemical Services, Inc., [Browning] appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to transfer this cause from Dade County to Broward County. Although the motion is best described as “bare bones,” it does demonstrate that the cause should be transferred to Bro-ward County pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1996)....

cause under the “forum non conveniens” statute. § 47.-122, Fla.Stat. (1979). Reversed and remanded.