CHERYL WELLS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE OCEANAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., BECKER & POLIAKOFF, ROBERT RUBINSTEIN, NORMAN NOLTEMEYER, 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.
The court reversed the dismissal of a slander of title claim based on the recording of a false lien, finding the pro se complaint adequately pleaded a cause of action despite inartful wording.
A complaint alleging the recording of a grossly inflated and false claim of lien with knowledge of its falsity states a cause of action for slander of title.
[1] A complaint alleging the recording of a grossly inflated and false claim of lien with knowledge of its falsity states a cause of action for slander of title, even if inar…
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded that a false claim of lien was recorded against her property with knowledge of its falsity, causing special damages.…
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 Four Corners Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the dismissal of Appellant’s first amended complaint as to count I, slander of title. As to that count, Appellant pleads the recording of a grossly inflated and false claim of lien and claims that the lien was recorded with knowledge of its falsity, causing special damages. See generally Brown v. Kelly, 545 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1953)). See also Allington Towers Condominium N., Inc. v. Allington Towers N., Inc., 415 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We find the pro se complainant states a cause of action, albeit inartfully worded and containing additional allegations that are superfluous to a slander of title claim. In reaching this conclusion, we note that we have looked solely to the four corners of Appellant’s pleading, without regard to any defenses that may be filed. See Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Although Appellees argue on appeal that the amended complaint was untimely filed, this does not appear to be the basis for Appellees’ motion to dismiss or the trial court order. As to all other counts, we affirm. We remand for further proceedings as to count I.
STONE, HAZOURI, JJ., and STETTIN, HERBERT, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 818 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…rior motion pursuant to rule 3.800, in which he asserted that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and there was no factual basis for his plea. This motion was denied on the merits and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Mitchell v. State, 755 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The motion in this proceeding is therefore successive and improper. See Demps v. State, 770 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). AFFIRMED. HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Irve Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1953)
- Arlington Towers Condo. N., Inc. v. Allington Towers N., Inc., 415 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Ketron B. Brown and Judy L. Brown v. Kelly, 545 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)