Case Name: Nancy URBAN, Appellant, v. Roger VENNE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-03-31
Citations: 595 So. 2d 1108
Docket Number: No. 91-3018
Parties: Nancy URBAN, Appellant, v. Roger VENNE, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 595
Pages: 1108–1108

Head Matter:
Nancy URBAN, Appellant, v. Roger VENNE, Appellee.
No. 91-3018.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 31, 1992.
Derek C. Aronovitz, Miami, for appellant.
Sidney L. Syna, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The issues presented in this case are the same ones we addressed in the companion case of Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992): (1) Whether a nonresident person who is impleaded in a proceeding supplementary pursuant to section 56.29, Florida Statutes (1989), may be compelled to appear in Dade County for discovery where there is otherwise no basis for long-arm jurisdiction, and (2) whether venue was proper in Dade County for proceedings supplemental after the underlying action was concluded. Again, we hold, as we did in Patterson, that the plaintiff may obtain discovery from the impleaded person, but that the discovery proceeding must be in the impleaded person's place of residence. As in Patterson, we also hold that the challenge to venue is without merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.