From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Golf Scoring Sys. Unlmtd. v. Remedio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 7, 2004
877 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

holding that the phrase "the proper venue" was limiting language that effectively excluded all others

Summary of this case from Signtronix, Inc. v. Annabelle's Interiors, Inc.

Opinion

Case No. 4D03-4142.

Opinion filed July 7, 2004.

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-565 CA.

Gary M. Bagliebter and Temple F. Kearns of Shutts Bowen LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Louis E. Lozeau, Jr. of Wright, Ponsoldt Lozeau, Trial Attorneys, L.L.P., Stuart, for appellee.


Joseph Remedio filed suit against Golf Scoring Systems Unlimited, Inc. in Martin County for breach of contract and specific performance of agreements related to the development and marketing of computerized golf scoring devices. Golf Scoring filed a motion to dismiss Remedio's complaint for improper venue based on a Broward County forum selection clause contained in the agreements. The trial court denied the motion, finding the clause permissive. We reverse.

Both the initial agreement for the development and marketing of computerized golf scoring devices and a subsequent Patent and Technology License Agreement included the following forum selection clause:

GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. The parties hereto consent to Broward County, Florida, as the proper venue for all actions that may be brought pursuant hereto.

Additional agreements between the parties neither included or altered this clause. Remedio maintains that the clause is permissive and Golf contends that the clause is mandatory. The trial court determined that the clause was permissive, relying onGranados Quinones v. Swiss Bank Corp., 509 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1987).

The status of the forum selection clause raises an issue of contract interpretation. When interpreting a contract, a court should give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 132 (Fla. 2000) (citing Scudder v. Greenbrier C. Condo. Ass'n, 663 So.2d 1362, 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)); Am. Real Estate Holdings Ltd. P'ship v. Twin Cities Investors, Inc., 740 So.2d 562, 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). "Words should be given their natural meaning or the meaning most commonly understood in relation to the subject matter and circumstances, and reasonable construction is preferred to one that is unreasonable." Thompson v. C.H.B., Inc., 454 So.2d 55, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Under Florida law, a forum selection clause is considered mandatory where it requires "`that a particular forum be the exclusive jurisdiction for litigation concerning the contract.'"Granados Quinones, 509 So.2d at 274 (citation omitted). On the other hand, "[p]ermissive clauses constitute nothing more than a consent to jurisdiction and venue in the named forum and do not exclude jurisdiction or venue in any other forum." Id. at 274-275. Generally, a forum selection clause "will be considered permissive where it lacks words of exclusivity." Shoppes Ltd. P'Ship v. Conn, 829 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Exclusivity exists where "forum selection clauses state or clearly indicate that any litigation must or shall be initiated in a specified forum," but not where words such as "may" are used. Id. To be mandatory the clause need only contain terms expressing that nature, not magic words. See Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (indicating that a venue clause need only be phrased in "mandatory terms" to be considered mandatory).

In the case at bar, the forum selection clause does not state that it is mandatory by employing the magic words "must" or "shall." The forum selection clause also does not state that it is permissive by using words such as "may." However, the forum selection clause does clearly indicate that it is mandatory in nature. The clause includes the phrase "the proper venue." "The" is a definite article "used as a function word with a noun modified by an adjective or by an attributive noun to limit the application of the modified noun to that specified by the adjective or the attributive noun [the] right answer"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1199 (1980 ed.). As such, "the" limits that to which it refers to only one, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, Broward County is the exclusive and mandatory forum in the case at bar. Consequently, we reverse and remand for dismissal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.


Summaries of

Golf Scoring Sys. Unlmtd. v. Remedio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 7, 2004
877 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

holding that the phrase "the proper venue" was limiting language that effectively excluded all others

Summary of this case from Signtronix, Inc. v. Annabelle's Interiors, Inc.

holding that a forum selection clause providing that Broward County was "the proper venue for all actions that may be brought pursuant to [this Agreement]" made Broward County the exclusive and mandatory forum in that case

Summary of this case from WCI Cmtys., LLC v. Sheridan

holding that although the forum selection clause did not contain the words "must" or "shall," the clause was nevertheless mandatory because it limited the appropriate forum to only one option, to the exclusion of all others

Summary of this case from Quick Cash, LLC v. Tradenet Enter. Inc.

holding that forum selection clause, which provides that "[t]he parties hereto consent to Broward County, Florida, as the proper venue for all actions that may be brought pursuant hereto," was mandatory because the use of the word "the" refers to only one "proper venue," to the exclusion of other venues

Summary of this case from Travel Exp. Inv. v. AT&T Corp.

holding that forum selection clause, which provides that "[t]he parties hereto consent to Broward County, Florida, as the proper venue for all actions that may be brought pursuant hereto," was mandatory because the use of the word "the" refers to only one "proper venue," to the exclusion of other venues

Summary of this case from Weisser v. PNC Bank, N.A.

concluding forum selection clause mandatory where it stated "[t]he parties hereto consent to Broward County, Florida, as the proper venue for all actions that may be brought pursuant hereto"

Summary of this case from EcoVirux, LLC v. BioPledge, LLC
Case details for

Golf Scoring Sys. Unlmtd. v. Remedio

Case Details

Full title:GOLF SCORING SYSTEMS UNLIMITED, INC., Appellant, v. JOSEPH W. REMEDIO…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 7, 2004

Citations

877 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

WCI Cmtys., LLC v. Sheridan

We have previously held that such language renders a forum selection clause mandatory. See, e.g.,Golf Scoring…

Avatar Props. v. Gundel

) (citations omitted); WCI Communities, LLC v. Sheridan, 244 So.3d 1171, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ("the use…