Case Name: Raul Garcia Granados QUINONES; Carmen Rodriguez Cerna; Estudios, Proyectos E Inversiones De Centro America, S.A.; Jorge Garcia Granados and Rosa Carlotta Dubon Garcia Granados, his wife, Appellants, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION (OVERSEAS) S.A., a Panamanian Banking Institution and Banque Nationale De Paris, a French Banking Institution, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-07-01
Citations: 498 So. 2d 440
Docket Number: Nos. 86-298, 86-388, 86-389 and 86-418
Parties: Raul Garcia Granados QUINONES; Carmen Rodriguez Cerna; Estudios, Proyectos E Inversiones De Centro America, S.A.; Jorge Garcia Granados and Rosa Carlotta Dubon Garcia Granados, his wife, Appellants, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION (OVERSEAS) S.A., a Panamanian Banking Institution and Banque Nationale De Paris, a French Banking Institution, Appellees.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 498
Pages: 440–440

Head Matter:
Raul Garcia Granados QUINONES; Carmen Rodriguez Cerna; Estudios, Proyectos E Inversiones De Centro America, S.A.; Jorge Garcia Granados and Rosa Carlotta Dubon Garcia Granados, his wife, Appellants, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION (OVERSEAS) S.A., a Panamanian Banking Institution and Banque Nationale De Paris, a French Banking Institution, Appellees.
Nos. 86-298, 86-388, 86-389 and 86-418.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 1, 1986.
Kenny Nachwalter & Seymour and Thomas D. Hall and Thomas H. Seymour, Miami, for appellant Raul Garcia Granados Quinones.
Michael F. Kelley, Miami, for appellant Carmen Rodriguez Cerna.
George Volsky, Miami, for appellant Es-tudios, Proyectos E Inversiones De Centro America.
L. Van Stillman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants Jorge Garcia Granados and Rosa Carlotta Dubon Garcia Granados, his wife.
Richey & Munroe and William L. Richey, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants bring these appeals from a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. We affirm on authority of Houston v. Caldwell, 359 So.2d 858 (Fla.1978) (where venue is established because one of the parties is a resident of Florida, the action may not be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens); Manrique v. Fabbri, 474 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (contractual language which reflected an agreement by the parties not to contest the jurisdiction of the Netherlands Antilles courts if suit was brought in that jurisdiction cannot be construed to oust Florida of subject matter jurisdiction); and Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (determination of venue question is generally left to sound discretion of trial judge and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of that discretion).
Affirmed.