NICHOLAS A. LAGANELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
BOCA GROVE GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB, INC., APPELLEE
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 homeowner and mandatory social club member challenged his golf club's smoking ban as violating the community's protective covenants, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the declaratory relief claim but affirmed the dismissal of the damages claim.
The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the declaratory relief claim because a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action tests only whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights, not whether such declaration would be in plaintiff's favor. However, the dismissal of the damages count was proper because appellant failed to allege a valid cause of action for tortious interference or breach of warranty.
[1] A motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment is not a motion on the merits, but rather determines whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in dismissing a complaint for declaratory judgment if the attached document does not negate the cause of action.
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“A motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment is not a motion on the merits. Rather, it is a motion only to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights, not to whether it is entitled to a declaration in its favor.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing motions to dismiss declaratory judgment claims—the threshold question differs from the ultimate merits question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Laganella is a homeowner in Boca Grove Plantation where social membership in Boca Grove Golf and Tennis Club is mandatory. The Club enacted …
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 Tortious Interference With Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the dismissal of appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Appellant filed suit against appellee, the Boca Grove Golf and Tennis Club, Inc. (“Club”), for declaratory and in-junctive relief as well as damages based on the Club’s rule banning smoking in all of the Club’s buildings. Appellant is a homeowner in Boca Grove Plantation. His complaint alleges that social membership in the Club is mandatory for homeowners in Boca Grove Plantation, and further alleges that the Club’s smoking ban was contrary to Boca Grove Plantation’s Amended Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions (“Declaration”). The trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action “based upon, inter alia, [Hidden] Harbour Estates, Inc. vs. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).”
We review the dismissal of a complaint seeking declaratory judgment for an abuse of discretion. See Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “For the purpose of passing upon a motion to dismiss the Court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint to be true.” Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); see also Health Application Sys., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 381 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (if a document attached to a pleading negates the pleader’s cause of action or defense, the document may be the basis for a motion to dismiss). Here, the Declaration attached to appellant’s complaint does not negate his cause of action for declaratory judgment.
The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action to the extent that it seeks declaratory judgment. In Royal Selections, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 687 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we recently stated:
A motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment is not a motion on the merits. Rather, it is a motion only to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights, not to whether it is entitled to a declaration in its favor. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, 56 So. 2d 445 (Fla.1952); Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, 210 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Kickliter v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 188 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
Here, appellant was entitled to a declaration of his rights. In fact, the Norman case expressly relied upon by the trial court arose from the grant of an injunction after a trial on the merits. See Norman, 309 So. 2d at 181. As we stated in Royal Selections, “[wjhile it may be appropriate to resolve this case on a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, the trial court cannot dispose of it on a motion to dismiss.” 687 So. 2d at 894. We therefore reverse the dismissal of appellant’s complaint to the extent that it seeks declaratory relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We affirm the dismissal of the count seeking damages for failure to state a cause of action. Cf. K.D. Lewis Enters. Corp. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The authority relied upon by appellant, Robinson v. Palm Coast Constr. Co., 611 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Piereth v. Old Bridge Corp., 473 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Barnett & Klein Corp. v. The President of Palm Beach, 426 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), is distinguishable as appellant did not allege a cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship or the breach of any warranty.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
GLICKSTEIN, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Basik Exports & Imports, Inc. v. Preferred Nat'l Ins. Co., 911 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the reasons that follow, we agree with the insurer and affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal. “We review the dismissal of a complaint seeking declaratory judgment for an abuse of discretion.” Laganella v. Boca Grove Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., 690 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Legion Ins. Co. v. Moore, 846 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). If reasonable people could differ as to the trial court’s decision there is no abuse of discretion.2 See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane, 114 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…decree he seeks favoring his position, but whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights at all.” Meadows Cmty. Ass’n, v. Russell-Tutty, 928 So. 2d [*195] 1276, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Laganella v. Boca Grove Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., 690 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A plaintiff is entitled to a declaration where: (1) there is “a bona fide, actual, present practical need” for the declaration; (2) the declaration sought deals with “a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts o…
-
Golf Club OF Plantation, Inc. v. City OF Plantation, 717 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…oyd v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 415 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The standard of review of a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint seeking declaratory judgment is abuse of discretion. Laganella v. Boca Grove Golf and Tennis Club, Inc., 690 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In this ease, the trial court dismissed count VI because Golf Club did not indicate that it was unsure about its rights. Dismissal on that basis was correct and, in addition, was warranted based on the fact that, Golf Club may…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956)
- Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hidden Harbour Ests., Inc. v. Bradford E. Norman and Evelyn E. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Co. v. Collins, 210 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Health Application Sys., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. & State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 381 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- K.D. Lewis Enters. Corp., Inc. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Willie LEE alias Slingshot Lee v. State, 188 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Barnett & Klein Corp. v. The President OF Palm Beach-A Condo., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Royal Selections, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 687 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Piereth v. OLD Bridge Corp., 473 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)