'May' rather than 'must'.

• Author: Davell, William C.
• Position: Letters - Letter to the editor

I write in response to the article "Venue Considerations in Construction Disputes" (May) and would like to correct one statement that was made in the article. Specifically, the authors assert that F.S. [section] 713.24 is mandatory in terms of requiring venue in the county where the security is deposited. I do not believe this is a correct position for two reasons. First, the statute specifically uses the word "may" rather than "must" in connection with the reference to venue. Second, the article relies in part on the case of Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The article fails to address the subsequent opinion of the Fourth District in Garrido v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 891 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The court in Garrido recognized that F.S. [section]713.24 had been amended after the Morganti opinion, which recognized that venue was no longer mandatory...