ERNEST W. SHAHID, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LUCILLE MCLANE CAMPBELL, ET AL., 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.
Appellants challenged dismissal of their second amended complaint alleging breach of contract and other claims arising from a real estate transaction. The court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately stated causes of action and that dismissal as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders was improper.
The complaint adequately alleged the necessary elements of the causes of action and therefore survived the motions to dismiss. Dismissal as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders was improper because the trial court issued only oral expressions of concern, not written orders requiring specific amendments.
[1] A complaint need only contain a short and plain statement of ultimate facts indicating entitlement to relief, assuming all alleged facts are true and drawing all reasonab…
[2] A complaint need not anticipate affirmative defenses, which should be raised in an answer.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In order to state a cause of action, a complaint need only contain a short and plain statement as to the ultimate facts which indicate that the pleader is entitled to relief. The court must assume that all of the facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint on a motion to dismiss
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParties entered into an option contract for purchase of real estate with special conditions concerning zoning and setbacks. Sellers provided a survey …
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 Rescission cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellants herein have appealed an order of the trial court granting with prejudice appellees’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. We reverse.
In order to state a cause of action, a complaint need only contain a short and plain statement as to the ultimate facts which indicate that the pleader is entitled to relief. The court must assume that all of the facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader. Bryant v. Coordinated Programs, Inc., 534 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Further, the complaint need not anticipate affirmative defenses, Thompson v. Martin, 530 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Any defenses should be stated by the defendants in an answer so that issues can be drawn. Sovran Equity Mortgage Corp. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In short, if the pleader alleges the necessary elements of the cause of action, the complaint states a cause of action.
In this case, the second amended complaint states that the parties, a limited partnership and individuals represented by a real estate agent, entered into an option contract for the purchase of real estate. The option agreement stated special conditions concerning zoning restrictions and setback lines. In order to show compliance with the special conditions, the sellers provided the buyers with a survey of the property purporting to show its condition. That survey did not, however, reflect the legislatively-mandated Coastal Construction Control Line established for the property in 1982. Prior to closing, when the buyers sought further assurances from the sellers that the special conditions had indeed been met, the sellers urged the buyers to close, promising to provide such assurances after closing. In reliance on this promise, the buyers closed and damages resulted.
A review of the elements of the various causes of action alleged by appellants reveals that these factual allegations are sufficient to withstand the motions to dismiss filed herein. Appellees’ arguments constitute nothing more than defenses to appellants' suit, and thus are more properly stated in its answer to the complaint than in a motion to dismiss directed to the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action.
Neither should the complaint have been dismissed based on appellants’ failure to comply with orders of the court. First of all, the trial court did not enter written orders requiring appellants to amend their complaint in a certain fashion. Rather, the trial judge orally expressed his concerns over perceived deficiencies in that complaint. A review of the record reveals that the trial court was concerned over the absence of allegations showing the parties’ intent that the special conditions of the option contract survive the deed, as well as appellants’ failure to attach a copy of the deed conveying the property.
The second amended complaint alleges that, subsequent to the option contract, appellees promised to show fulfillment of the special conditions after closing, inferring an intent that the special conditions survive the closing. With regard to the failure to attach the deed, the complaint sufficiently alleges that closing occurred and that a deed was conveyed. Further, the breach and rescission counts are specifically addressed, not to the deed, but to the option contract, which was attached to the complaint. Therefore, attachment of the deed was not vital to the sufficiency of the complaint, and because appellants were never ordered to attach it, we find that the complaint could not be dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with an order of the court.
Because we find that the complaint states a cause of action as to all counts, and that the appellants did not refuse to comply with a court order regarding amendment of their complaint, the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nader W. Sarkis and Nazih W. Sarkis v. Pafford OIL Co., Inc., 697 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…the trial court and in this court. When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must accept the allegations of a complaint as true. Snow v. Byron, 580 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Shahid v. Campbell, 552 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Likewise, the appellate court must accept the facts alleged in a complaint as true when reviewing an order that determines the sufficiency of the complaint. Higgs v. Florida Department of Corrections, 647 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DC…
-
Weaver v. The Leon Cnty. Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 680 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…statement as to the ultimate facts wMch indicate the pleader is entitled to relief. “The court must assume that all of the facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader.” Shahid v. Campbell, 552 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The court may not go beyond the four comers of the complaint in testing the legal sufficiency of the allegations. Fish v. Post of Amvets No. 85, 560 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Crews v. Ellis, 531 So. 2d 1372, 1374…
-
Higgs v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 647 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…to state a cause of action, “it must be assumed that all allegations in the complaint are true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the pleader.” Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Shahid v. Campbell, 552 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Applying the standards set forth herein to the circumstances of this case, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JOANOS…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.F. Thompson v. P.W. Martin, 530 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Dearmas v. State, 530 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- J.D. Bryant v. Coordinated Programs, Inc., 534 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)