BOARD V. HARVEY SEEDS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D06-2052 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 06-1162 HARVEY W. SEEDS POST NO. 29, ** DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN LEGION, ORGANIZED AND EXISTING BY VIRTUE ** OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON ** SEPTEMBER 16, 1919, ** Appellee. Opinion filed December 13, 2006. An Appeal from a non-final order of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas S. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Gary L. Heiser, Senior Attorney, and Teresa L. Mussetto, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Department of Environmental Protection, for appellant. McDonald & McDonald and Patrick G. McDonald, for appellee. Before COPE, C.J., and GREEN, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. This case concerns a sum held in escrow by a title company, pending resolution of a dispute between the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 as to the entitlement to the fund under conditions of a Trustees 1966 deed of state property to the Post. The company filed an interpleader action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, depositing the amount in dispute in the court registry, and was dismissed from the action. In the ensuing proceeding between the Trustees and the Post, the Trustees moved to transfer the case to Leon County under the agencies. (1948). familiar venue privilege conferred upon state See Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So. 2d 844 The trial judge denied the motion but we reverse and remand with directions to transfer the case to Leon County. Notwithstanding the general attractiveness of retaining the case here, it is an immutable principle that, under Florida s home venue privilege, a state agency such as the appellant may be sued only at its headquarters, here, Tallahassee, unless one of the recognized exceptions to that rule applies. See Fla. Dep t of Children & Families v. Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2004); Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sch. Bd. of Osceola County v. State Bd. of Educ., 903 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Fla. Dep t of Ins. v. Amador, 841 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 2 3d DCA 2003). None does. The circumstances of this case simply do not fit into any of those limited categories; that is (1) there is no waiver, Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1287-88; (2) the sword wielder exception is inapplicable because the Post cannot be regarded as raising a shield against the state s thrust, Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1288 (quoting Fla. Dep t of Ins. v. Amador, 841 So. 2d 612, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)); Dep't of Revenue v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Ft. Myers, 256 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)(mere demand is insufficient to render sword wielder exception applicable); (3) it is clear that the Trustees and the Post are not joint tortfeasors, Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So. 2d at 1288; Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392, 395 (Fla. 1983); and (4) the involved. with exception created in Sun-Sentinel is plainly not Hence, there is no choice but to reverse and remand directions to transfer the now-pending appellant and appellee to the Second Circuit. Reversed. 3 action between
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
