Case Name: WASTE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation, and South Florida Recycling, Inc., n/k/a Waste Corporation of Florida Inc, Appellants, v. CHOICE SANITATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Choice Sanitation, L.C., a Florida limited liability corporation, Will Cowdell, individually, and Tim Schweizer, individually, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-06-28
Citations: 760 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: No. 4D00-0873
Parties: WASTE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation, and South Florida Recycling, Inc., n/k/a Waste Corporation of Florida Inc, Appellants, v. CHOICE SANITATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Choice Sanitation, L.C., a Florida limited liability corporation, Will Cowdell, individually, and Tim Schweizer, individually, Appellees.
Judges: GUNTHER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 760
Pages: 1096–1097

Head Matter:
WASTE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation, and South Florida Recycling, Inc., n/k/a Waste Corporation of Florida Inc, Appellants, v. CHOICE SANITATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Choice Sanitation, L.C., a Florida limited liability corporation, Will Cowdell, individually, and Tim Schweizer, individually, Appellees.
No. 4D00-0873.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 28, 2000.
Bonita Kneeland Brown, and Jeffrey M. Paskert of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge a non-final order of the Broward County Circuit Court granting appellees motion to transfer venue to St. Lucie County. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with Smith v. Morgan, Carratt & O'Conner, P.A., 710 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Cameron v. Smith New Court, Inc., 608 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
On the day of the hearing the court advised appellants to file affidavits to oppose appellees' motion and affidavit. Appellants had witnesses present, but because the matter was not set for an evidentiary hearing, the court was not in a position to accept their testimony. We remand the case for further proceedings as the court ruled on the motion the day after the hearing and before appellants filed the affidavits.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.