3-3 Means for Determining Proper Forum

• Jurisdiction: United States

3-3 Means for Determining Proper Forum⁷

3-3:1 Last Necessary Event

In Tucker v. Fianson,⁸ the attorney being sued practiced and resided in Broward County. The malpractice complaint alleged he had rendered negligent advice regarding a condominium conversion in Dade County, and the client chose to bring his lawsuit in that county. The trial court denied the attorney's motion to transfer the case to Broward County. In affirming this ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal adopted the rule that "for venue purposes, a tort claim is deemed to have accrued where the last event necessary to make the defendant liable for the tort took place."⁹ The court graphically described its ruling by invoking a bow-and-arrow theme: "In sum, it is claimed that, while lawyer Tucker negligently shot his arrow into the air of Broward County, it did no harm and had no effect until it fell to earth in Dade. It is therefore here that he must answer for his asserted error."¹⁰

The bow-and-arrow analogy was used again in Roberts v. Cason,¹¹ where one concurring judge could not tell from the record whether "the arrow shot into the air in Orange County fell to earth in Orange or Lake County."¹² The dissenting judge suggested that the arrow "did not land (i.e., accrue) any place at all based upon the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which is woefully inadequate."¹³

The underlying facts indicated that a real estate closing involving property located in Lake County was held in Orange County. The plaintiff filed suit in Orange County against attorneys having a place of business only in Lake County. The court held that venue was proper in Orange County because that is where the allegedly negligent closing took place.¹⁴

The allegedly injured clients in Weiner v. Prudential Mortgage Investors, Inc.¹⁵brought suit in Dade County against their attorneys, who lived and practiced in Marion County, based on a claim that a foreclosure suit had not been brought in Alachua County as instructed. The aggrieved clients sought to construct a claim based on false communications in Dade County. The court deemed this attempt "chimerical" and disregarded it for venue purposes.¹⁶

In Rocco v. Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty & Hooker, P.A.,¹⁷ the defendant lawyers were accused of failing to redact confidential financial information, which led to monetary damages against the client. The court concluded that redressable harm did not occur until the improperly disclosed information was used in Manatee County pleadings, thereby making it the proper venue for the malpractice case.¹⁸ The argument that venue was proper where the defendant lawyers' allegedly negligent acts occurred (Hillsborough County) was unsuccessful.¹⁹

The defendant lawyers also argued that Hillsborough was the most convenient county for the witnesses and that the interests of justice supported venue in Hillsbor-ough. These issues were not addressed by the appellate court because the trial court made no findings about them.²⁰

3-3:2 Compulsory Counterclaims

In Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. v. Silver & Waldman, P.A. ,²¹ the law firm was served with a suit for malpractice in Broward County on October 27, 1998. At the time, Hollywood Lakes Country Club was not a party to the proceeding. Two days later, the law firm filed suit in Miami-Dade County to recover attorneys' fees from Hollywood Lakes.

Hollywood Lakes was added as a plaintiff in the Broward action on November 25, 1998. Six days earlier, it had sought to have the Miami-Dade case transferred to Bro-ward County. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court held that the Miami-Dade case was a compulsory counterclaim.²² Because the plaintiffs had perfected service of process on the law firm in the Broward case before the Miami-Dade...