Doctrine of Non Conveniens: Can you Transfer a Florida Probate Case to a More Convenient Venue?

A recent case from the Fourth District Court of Appeal (DCA) discusses the defendant’s legal ability, in Florida, to ask a Florida court to transport, or dismiss, a Florida lawsuit to another state that is more convenient. The legal doctrine of forum non conveniens may be invoked by a party under certain circumstances.It is important for people involved in Palm Beach trust lawsuits to understand that motions to dismiss, and the choice of a court room to handle a trial, are actually trials before the trial. These trials before the trial require limited discovery, witnesses, documents, and evidence . Probate attorneys know that a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens can be important for strategic, legal, and financial reasons.

First of all, for a Florida court to hear a lawsuit, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and it must have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter to be tried in the court. In the probate setting, courts have the inherent ability to bind beneficiaries and other people who want to participate in a Florida estate administration. In short, if you want to have a say in a decedent’s estate or property, and the probate is going on in Florida, you’re probably going to have to subject yourself to the personal jurisdiction of the Florida court. The same thing holds true for trust beneficiaries of Florida trusts whose principal place of administration is in Florida. There are specific subject matter jurisdiction and venue statutes in the Florida trust code, which affect Palm Beach trust beneficiaries and trustees.

What if you sue someone from out of state or from a different city? They may argue that the Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or that, another state may be more convenient. Can you really have a Florida lawsuit dismissed based upon “convenience?” A July 26, 2017 Fourth DCA opinion thoroughly discusses the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Here, the law firm that drafted a 2002 POA for the decedent filed an action in Broward County seeking a declaratory judgment that a 2002 POA was valid as “freely and voluntarily executed” by the decedent, with the requisite capacity and ” free from duress, coercion, and undue influence.” The decedent’s three daughters were named as the defendants. The daughters filed an amended motion to transfer venue from Broward County to Seminole County. Two of the daughters reside in Seminole County, which is over 200 miles away from Broward. The other daughter resides in Brevard County, which is more than 135 miles away from Broward. Furthermore, the decedent lived and died in Seminole County. Her affairs were handled there until her death. The decedent’s Florida estate was in probate in Seminole County, and that is where the decedent’s property is located. Also, other witnesses who could offer valuable testimony were located in Seminole County. The law firm argued that, at the time they filed the lawsuit, one of the daughters lived in Broward. Despite the compelling evidence proving that Seminole County would be a more convenient forum, the trial court denied the daughter’s amended motion to transfer for improper venue or forum non conveniens. Did the 4th DCA agree? To read the entire case, click here.