Case Name: GIRDLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Seaboard Surety Company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIORS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-12-31
Citations: 517 So. 2d 137
Docket Number: No. 87-922
Parties: GIRDLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Seaboard Surety Company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIORS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: DAUKSCH, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 517
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
GIRDLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Seaboard Surety Company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIORS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 87-922.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 31, 1987.
William E. Ruffier of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & Martinez, P.A., Orlando, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Daniel J. Webster of Dunn, Smith & Withers, Daytona Beach, for appel-lee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This issue below was whether venue of one portion of an action by Architectural Exteriors, Inc. against Girdley Construction Co., Inc. should be transferred from Volusia County to Orange County based upon a contractual provision between the parties. In the instant case, such a transfer would result in multiple suits and a splitting of causes of action. Therefore, the provision should not be enforced. See Interval Marketing Associates, Inc. v. Sea Club Ass's IV, Ltd., 468 So.2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The timeliness of the motion was not challenged or considered below.
The order is reversed.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH, COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.