context: There is statutory support for the choice of venue and appellant/wife has not demonstrated that the court, for any other reason, should have ordered the case tried in Broward County.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: trial court has broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue
citation_a.sentence: See § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1985); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court has broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue); cf. Thames v. Thames, 449 So.2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (dissolution of marriage action was improperly brought in Pinellas County where evidence showed that the place where the parties last resided with the intent to remain married was Alachua County, and there was no property subject to the litigation located in Pinellas County).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: dissolution of marriage action was improperly brought in Pinellas County where evidence showed that the place where the parties last resided with the intent to remain married was Alachua County, and there was no property subject to the litigation located in Pinellas County
citation_b.sentence: See § 47.011, Fla.Stat. (1985); Groome v. Abrams, 448 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court has broad discretion in dealing with matters of venue); cf. Thames v. Thames, 449 So.2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (dissolution of marriage action was improperly brought in Pinellas County where evidence showed that the place where the parties last resided with the intent to remain married was Alachua County, and there was no property subject to the litigation located in Pinellas County).