N.E. AT WEST PALM BEACH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR HOROWITZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR AND TRUSTEE OF WEST RESTAURANT CORPORATION, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, WEST RESTAURANT CORPORATION, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND 1444 RESTAURANT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
A business tenant in a sublease arrangement sued the sublessor for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the sublessor failed to disclose material information about a major lease assignment that resulted in termination of the sublease without compensation. The district court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action.
The court held that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and that a motion to dismiss should not have been granted. The court reasoned that when reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must confine itself to the four corners of the complaint and cannot consider affirmative defenses or evidentiary sufficiency.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, requiring the court to consider only the allegations within the complaint's four corners.
[2] A court ruling on a motion to dismiss must not consider affirmative defenses or the anticipated sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action and the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and the limited scope of judicial review at that stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceN.E. AT West Palm Beach occupied business premises under a sublease from the sublessor. The sublease contained a provision (paragraph 30(e)) allowing …
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 Duty To Inform cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff/appellant, occupier of business premises under a sublease, alleged in a complaint that the defendant-sublessor, with whom he has a fiduciary relationship, assigned the major lease pursuant to a provision in the agreement (paragraph 30(e)) which gave the assignee the right to terminate the sublease. According to the sublease, if it were terminated pursuant to that provision, plaintiff, if in good standing, would be entitled to compensation based on a percentage of the gross sales price of the premises under the major lease. It was further alleged that the new assignee terminated the sublease pursuant to paragraph 30(e) and forced plaintiff to move to less desirable space under a new sublease agreement without compensation. The loss under count two of the complaint was allegedly attributable to the sublessor’s breach of a fiduciary duty to inform plaintiff of the fact and terms of the major lease assignment, which information would have affected plaintiffs negotiations with the assignee as to the new sublease.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action and the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint. It is inappropriate to consider defendants’ affirmative defenses, or the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce. Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Looking strictly to the four corners of the complaint it cannot be said that a cause of action is not stated against the defendants. Nottage v. American Express Co., 452 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
In clarification of the opinion filed herein dated June 4, 1985, we hold that the complaint should not have been dismissed because a cause of action was stated in both count I based on breach of a sublease agreement, and count II which alleges breach of fiduciary duty. The motion for rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
de Ribeaux v. del Valle, 531 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…valid claim.” Midflorida Schools Fed’l Credit Union v. Fansler, 404 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). The trial court must confine itself to the four comers of the complaint in making its determination. N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). It is inappropriate to weigh the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence or to consider the merits of the defendant’s affirmative defenses. Id. at 571. Taken as true, the facts as pled in Count I show the necessary elements of a…
-
Martin v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…s stated and requires the court to look only to the four corners of the complaint without considering any affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, or evidence likely to be produced by either [*129] side. N.E. at W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The complaint in this case sufficiently alleged all the elements of a fraudulent representation. See Assad v. Mendell, 511 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The terms of an insurance policy do not preclude an action against t…
-
Assad v. Mendell, 511 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…suffered $12,000 in damages. Upon the Mendells motion to dismiss, the trial court should have taken these allegations as true without regard to the sufficiency of evidence the Assads were likely to produce. N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Raney v. Jimmie Diesel [*684] Corp., 362 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Based upon these allegations, the Assads’ complaint stated with sufficient particularity all of the elements necessary to state a cause of action for fraud a…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Nottage v. Am. Express Co., 452 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)