NAT WEAVER, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE C. FENCL, JR., 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.
Appellate court reversed dismissal of slander of title counterclaim, holding that well-pled allegations must be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss and the counterclaim stated a valid cause of action.
On a motion to dismiss, a trial court must accept all well-pled allegations as true and determine whether they state a valid cause of action; factual conflicts cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
[1] On a motion to dismiss, a trial court must accept all well-pled allegations as true and cannot resolve factual conflicts; such conflicts are properly addressed through su…
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 intelligence“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a trial court is restricted to a consideration of the well-pled allegations of the complaint. It must accept those allegations as true and then determine if the complaint states a valid claim for relief.”
Standard for evaluating motions to dismiss
Nat Weaver, Inc. filed a counterclaim for slander of title against George C. Fencl, Jr. and others, which was dismissed by the trial court.…
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 Slander Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
Nat Weaver, Inc. appeals from the order dismissing its counterclaim for slander of title. We reverse because the well-pled allegations of the counterclaim, which must be accepted as true when considering a motion to dismiss, state a cause of action. See Hol land v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a trial court is restricted to a consideration of the well-pled allegations of the complaint. It must accept those allegations as true and then determine if the complaint states a valid claim for relief.”); see also Lewis v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 604 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The law is well settled that a motion to dismiss a complaint is not a motion for summary judgment in which the court may rely on facts adduced in depositions, affidavits, or other proofs.”). As this court explained in Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So. 2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), “[Fjactual conflicts cannot be resolved by motions to dismiss because all allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true. Such conflicts are better addressed in summary judgment proceedings.”
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
HARRIS, Judge,
concurring specially:
Because the issue is the timing of the court’s order and not its merits, I concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Hous. Auth. of the City of Orlando v. Bradley (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)…ismiss. Sobi, 846 So. 2d at 1206 (explaining that the trial court must confine its review to the four corners of the complaint, draw all inferences in favor of the pleader, and accept as true all well-pleaded allegations); Nat Weaver, Inc. v. Fencl, 701 So. 2d. 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (explaining that a motion to dismiss a complaint is not a motion for summary judgment in which the court may rely on facts adduced in depositions, affidavits, or other proofs); Bozeman v. Hernando County, 548 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Edelmiro Cintron and Elizabeth Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Lewis v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)