filed in the wrong venue. The widely accepted practice in Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, is that where venue is improper, the case should be transferred, not dismissed. See Bush v. State, 945 So.2d 1207, 1214 (Fla. 2006) (recognizing that rule 1.060(b) “gives a court authority to transfer a case when improper venue is sought; and transfer, rather than dismissal, is the preferred remedy in such a case.”); Fla. Gamco, Inc. v. Fontaine, 68 So.3d 923, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (explaining “the court should, if possible, transfer the case to the correct venue ... rather than dismiss it.”); East Coast Karate Studios, Inc. v. Lifestyle Martial Arts, LLC, 65 So.3d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing and remanding for transfer to the proper venue); Chase, 913 So.2d at 1176 (<HOLDING>); Carr v. Stetson, 741 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla. 4th
holding that the failure to condition a transfer on death or remarriage of the wife was a factor showing that the transfer was not in the nature of alimony holding that transfer to a district in which circuit law likely precluded standing was proper because the language of  1404a refers only to whether venue is proper and not a plaintiffs capacity to sue holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court