COSTA BELLA DEVELOPMENT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MIGUEL RECAREY, JR., OLGA RECAREY, MIGUEL RECAREY AND CARMAN RECAREY, AND DONALD H. ALTMAN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against the defendants in their individual capacities.
Plaintiff sold land and took a purchase money mortgage; defendants took a subsequent mortgage and allegedly induced plaintiff to subrogate its mortgag…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from two orders1 which dismissed its amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action against the appellees, defendants below, in their individual capacities. We find that a cause of action was stated and reverse.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff sold land to Costa Development Corporation, which was owned and controlled by the defendants, and took back as part of the purchase price a purchase money mortgage encumbering the property. A subsequent mortgage was then taken out on the property by the defendants. Plaintiff allegedly was induced, through a fraudulent conspiracy, to subrogate its mortgage to that of the second lender. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants, in their individual capacities, guaranteed this second mortgage and that those guarantees acted as added security for the appellant’s mortgage but that the defendants subsequently sold the property to a dummy corporation of the second lender in return for a quantity of cash and a release from their personal guarantees. These facts sufficiently established the plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendants for fraudulently conspiring to extinguish plaintiff’s rights and security under the mortgage. Ocala Loan Company v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
We find that the complaint does set forth a cause of action against the individual defendants and reverse the orders of the trial court.
. One order was entered in favor of appellee, Donald H. Altman; the other was entered in favor of appellees, Recareys.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicholson v. Kellin, 481 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…cy, we conclude that the fifth amended complaint states a cause of [*936] action. See Kent v. Kent (allegations that trustee and son conspired to deplete trust assets sufficient to state a cause of action); Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Recar-ey, 390 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (allegations that the defendants, owners of a development corporation, fraudulently conspired to extinguish plaintiffs rights and security under a mortgage were sufficient to state a cause of action against the defendants in their…
Authorities Cited
- Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)