## Facts

- Several individual accountants, including Robert Bedwell (the accountants), worked at an accounting firm.
- Charles and Susan Rucks (the Ruckses) were clients of that firm.
- The accountants lived in either Miami-Dade County or Broward County, and the firm’s transactions took place in those counties.
- The original accounting firm voluntarily liquidated, and the accountants joined a new accounting firm.
- After the liquidation, the Ruckses filed two lawsuits in Okeechobee County: (1) a professional malpractice action against the accountants, and (2) a separate action under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), alleging that the new firm purchased liquidated assets from the former firm so the former firm could avoid paying creditors, including the Ruckses.
- In the UFTA action, the accountants moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, arguing that venue was proper only in Miami-Dade or Broward County because the accountants resided there and the alleged transfers and related conduct occurred there.
- The Ruckses argued venue was proper in Okeechobee County because their damages from the accountants’ malpractice were felt there and their malpractice lawsuit was pending there.
- The trial court denied the accountants’ venue motion, and the accountants appealed that nonfinal order.

## Issues

1. For a UFTA fraudulent transfer claim, does the cause of action accrue for venue purposes in the county where the creditor claims injury from the underlying wrongdoing (and filed a related malpractice action), or in the county where the alleged fraudulent transfers and related acts occurred and/or where defendants reside?
2. Under Florida’s general venue statute, section 47.011, was Okeechobee County a proper venue for the UFTA action against the individual accountants and the new accounting firm?

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the motion to transfer venue.
- The court held venue in Okeechobee County was improper because none of the statutory bases for venue tied the UFTA claim to Okeechobee County.
- The case was remanded with directions to transfer the UFTA action to a proper venue, identified by the record as Miami-Dade County or Broward County.
- Because venue was legally improper in Okeechobee County, the court did not reach any separate argument about transferring based on convenience.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s general venue statute, section 47.011, limits venue to (1) the county where the defendant resides, (2) the county where the cause of action accrued, or (3) the county where the property in litigation is located.
- A fraudulent transfer claim under Florida’s UFTA is a creditor remedy focused on a debtor’s transfer of assets to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors; the operative events are the challenged transfers and conduct connected to those transfers.
- For venue purposes, a UFTA claim does not “accrue” merely because the creditor filed a related lawsuit in a particular county or claims financial effects there; instead, accrual is tied to where the transfer-related acts occurred and where the defendants are located for venue purposes.
- Venue cannot be fixed in a county with no connection to the defendants’ residence, no location of transfer-related acts, and no office or agent of the business entity defendants.
- A creditor may pursue UFTA relief without first obtaining a judgment on the underlying debt, supporting treatment of the fraudulent transfer claim as separate from, and not controlled by, the venue of the underlying liability action.

## Conclusion

*Bedwell v. Rucks* holds that a Florida UFTA action must be filed in a county authorized by section 47.011—typically where defendants reside or where the alleged fraudulent transfers occurred—and that a creditor cannot keep a fraudulent transfer case in the same county as a related malpractice suit simply by alleging that economic harm was felt there.


Bedwell v. Rucks, 127 So. 3d 533 (2012)