THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERTO GARRIDO AND OTHER UNKNOWN PARTIES, 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 reversed a dismissal of the Assemblies of God's complaint seeking to establish title to church property, holding that the complaint stated a sufficient claim and that grounds not appearing on the face of the complaint cannot support dismissal.
A complaint alleging conditional transfer of title by corporate resolution states a sufficient claim and cannot be dismissed on grounds of inauthenticity or res judicata that do not appear on the face of the complaint.
[1] On a motion to dismiss, only the sufficiency of the complaint itself may be considered; grounds such as inauthenticity of attached documents or res judicata effects from…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe General Council of the Assemblies of God sought to establish title to Dade County realty owned by a local church affiliate, the Evangelical Pentec…
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 Corporate Resolution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, the parent national organization of a congregational church, from an order which granted a motion to dismiss and dismissed its complaint with prejudice. The action sought to establish the plaintiffs title to realty in Dade County which had been owned by a local church affiliate, the Evangelical Pentecostal Church and Refugee Center, Inc. Attached to the complaint, inter alia, was a resolution of that .corporation which purported conditionally to transfer title to the parent and at least prima facie established the right of the plaintiff to recover. Since only the sufficiency of the complaint itself is in issue, 40 Fla.Jur.2d Pleadings § 70 (1982), and neither of the grounds apparently relied upon below, the claimed inau-thenticity of the resolution, 40 Fla.Jur.2d Pleadings § 175, and the alleged res judica-ta effect of certain prior actions which did not appear on the face of the complaint, Sanchez v. Mercy Hospital, 386 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Frank v. Campbell Property Management, Inc., 351 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), may properly be considered on a motion to dismiss, the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kanisky Evans v. State, 985 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…se. The statute was editorially amended effective May 24, 1997, but the substance of the statute was not affected. See ch. 97-102, at 1756, Laws of Fla. . The Fourth District opinion in Pisegna contains a “But see” signal citing Chestnut v. State, 452 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, Chestnut is a one-sentence opinion stating, "The trial court did not err in giving the jury an instruction on 'principals' after closing arguments, even though the instruction had not been requested at the charge confere…
-
Onelia Padron Lowy v. Roberts, 453 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…what the evidence may show, see 3 Page on Wills §§ 29.161-29.166 (new rev. ed. 1960); Annot., supra §§ 8-14, and there is no question that only the facial sufficiency of the amended petition is or was properly in issue. Assemblies of God v. Garrido, 452 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the appellant filed below, and the parties have extensively referred to here, a report from an expert questioned documents examiner, which, after analysis of the wills, expressed the conclusions that [*889] The original signature…
-
Pisegna v. State, 488 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…also note that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on “principals” despite the fact that the court had granted the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the substantive count of trafficking in cocaine. But see Chestnut v. State, 452 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). REVERSED. DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Giesela Frank v. Campbell Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 351 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Turnbull v. State, 386 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)