DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WCI COMMUNITIES, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

CHRISTINE SHERIDAN, ACTION ROOFING SERVICES, INC., 

SPECIALTY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, ENGINEERED AIR, LLC., 

PROGRESSIVE PLASTERING, INC., DOUGLAS A. ZARGHAM and

MELANIE SINCLAIR ZARGHAM d/b/a ZARGHAM & SINCLAIR 

ARCHITECTURE,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-2963

[ April 18, 2018 ]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE 17-006667 (05).

Rosemary Wilder of Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis, Coral 

Gables, for appellant.

Robert Rivas of Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L., Tallahassee, for Appellee 

Christine Sheridan.

PER CURIAM.

WCI Communities, LLC (“WCI”) appeals a Broward County order 

denying its motion to dismiss or transfer the underlying action for 

improper venue. Because we find the Collier County venue clause in the 

parties’ contract to be mandatory, we reverse.

Christine Sheridan (“Sheridan”) entered a contract with WCI for the 

purchase of a newly-constructed single-family home. The contract 

contained a venue clause stating that the venue for any contractual 

disputes would be Collier County, Florida.

When Sheridan filed a breach of contract action against WCI in Broward 

County, WCI moved to transfer or dismiss the complaint based on the 

venue clause. The circuit court denied WCI’s motion, ruling that, “the 
2

venue clause lacked exclusivity,” and “the clause is permissive, and not 

mandatory.” WCI appeals, contending that the clause is mandatory.

“Because an appellate court reviews the interpretation of a contractual 

forum selection provision as a matter of law, this case is reviewed de novo.” 

R.S.B. Ventures, Inc. v. Berlowitz, 201 So. 3d 719, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 

A permissive forum selection clause merely represents consent to 

jurisdiction. Id. However, a mandatory forum selection clause contains 

exclusive language and requires that litigation be brought in a particular 

forum. Id. at 720-721.

Here, the parties’ contract provided:

VENUE: Purchaser and Seller agree that the venue for 

resolution of any dispute regarding this Contract lies within 

Collier County, Florida.

(emphasis supplied). We have previously held that such language renders 

a forum selection clause mandatory. See, e.g., Golf Scoring Sys. Unlimited, 

Inc. v. Remedio, 877 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (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) 

(emphasis supplied).

Appellee Sheridan contends that Golf Scoring is distinguishable from 

the instant case. Sheridan argues that in Golf Scoring, we determined the 

forum selection clause was mandatory because the word “proper” 

appeared before “venue.”

However, we did not focus on the word “proper” in reaching our 

decision. Instead, we focused on “the,” in relation to the word, “venue.” 

Golf Scoring, 877 So. 2d at 829. Specifically, we concluded that the use of 

the definite article “the,” when conjoined with the noun “venue,” 

exclusively limits a forum selection clause to only one venue, “to the 

exclusion of all others.” Id. Our subsequent discussion in R.S.B. also 

supports this conclusion:

[T]his court has recognized that a forum selection clause using 

“the” to modify “venue” (“the venue”) indicates exclusivity 

consistent with mandatory forum selection clauses because 

the modification refers “to only one, to the exclusion of all 

others.”
3

201 So. 3d at 721 (citing and quoting Golf Scoring, 877 So. 2d at 829) 

(emphasis supplied).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for the circuit court to 

either dismiss or transfer the action to Collier County.

Reversed and Remanded.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.