ANDREW CHESNICK
v.
DEZER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ETC., ET AL.,
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.
Andrew Chesnick appealed the trial court's dismissal of counts II and III of his amended complaint against Dezer Development. The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil conspiracy count but reversed the dismissal of the breach of personal guarantee count, finding the complaint contained sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss.
The court reversed the dismissal of count II (breach of personal guarantee), holding that when all factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true and reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the non-moving party, the amended complaint contained sufficient allegations to withstand the motion to dismiss. The court affirmed the dismissal of count III without discussion.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not factual issues.
[2] When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may not consider matters outside the four corners of the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine factual issues.'”
Establishes the limited scope of a motion to dismiss—it addresses legal sufficiency only, not facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew Chesnick filed an amended complaint against Dezer Development, LLC and others containing claims including breach of personal guarantee (count I…
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 Breach Of Personal Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of counts II and III of Andrew Chesnick’s amended complaint. We affirm the dismissal of count III, civil conspiracy, without further discussion as the parties neither briefed nor argued the issue on appeal. As to count II, breach of personal guarantee, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is “to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine factual issues.” Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006). “Unlike a motion for summary judgment, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, ‘[a] court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint in considering the legal sufficiency of the allegations.’” Rolle v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 212 So. 3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Botelho, D.O., 891 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). The trial court is precluded from considering the arguments of the parties that extend beyond the pleading. See Lewis v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “All [factual] allegations must be taken as true and any reasonable inferences drawn from the complaint must be construed in favor of the non-moving party.” Minor v. Brunetti, 43 So. 3d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (citing Chodorow v. Porto Vita, Ltd., 954 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). Taking the allegations in the amended complaint as true and viewing the inferences in the light most favorable to Mr. Chesnick, the amended complaint contained sufficient allegations of a breach of guarantee to withstand a motion to dismiss.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2006)
- Halsey Minor & Save Hialeah Racing, Inc. v. Brunetti, 43 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Lewis v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Carlton J. Clark v. State, 954 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Rolle v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 212 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. George Botelho, D.O., 891 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)