JOHN D. MCKEY, JR., AND CANDACE MCKEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
D.R. GOLDENSON & CO., 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.
Appellants filed a multi-count amended complaint against various defendants, including Count XXIII against appellee alleging breach of contract for failure to provide a letter of credit. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss Count XXIII, finding the attached exhibits repugnant to the allegations. The appellate court affirmed dismissal as to Candace McKey but reversed and remanded as to John D. McKey, Jr., finding dismissal premature regarding his status.
The court affirmed dismissal as to Candace McKey but reversed and remanded as to John D. McKey, Jr. The trial court correctly found Count XXIII insufficient as to Candace McKey, but premature dismissal as to John D. McKey, Jr., because appellee had not conclusively shown that attached documents were repugnant to the allegations regarding his status as an individual or agent.
[1] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is reviewed de novo.
[2] Exhibits attached to a complaint are considered part of the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss.
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“If an attached document to a complaint negates the pleader's cause of action, then dismissing the complaint is appropriate.”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissal based on repugnant attachments to a complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, husband and wife, filed an amended complaint with twenty-three counts against several individuals and business entities. Count XXIII alleg…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, husband and wife, filed an amended complaint asserting various causes of action in twenty-three counts against several individuals and business entities. Attached to the complaint were the required documents allegedly supporting the action. Appellee was named only in Count XXIII that alleged appellee had breached a contract to provide a letter of credit in favor of appellants. Appellee moved to dismiss Count XXIII on the basis that the attachments to the complaint were repugnant to the allegations in the complaint and showed on their face that appellants had no cause of action against it. The trial court granted appellee’s motion and dismissed Count XXIII with prejudice. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We review this case on a de novo standard because dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is a question of law. See W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because we review an order dismissing one count of a multi-count complaint, we are limited to determining whether Count XXIII states a cause of action. See Landrum v. John Doe Pit Digger, 696 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We also review the exhibits to the complaint because they are considered part of the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Southeast Med. Prods., Inc. v. Williams, 718 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). If an attached document to a complaint negates the pleader’s cause of action, then dismissing the complaint is appropriate. See Shelton v. Eisemann, 75 Fla. 644, 79 So. 75 (1918); Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Keeping all these principles in mind, we find that the trial court correctly dismissed Count XXIII as to Candace McKey. We, therefore, affirm the final judgment as to her. However, we also find that dismissal is premature as to John D. McKey, Jr., because appellee has not conclusively shown that the attached documents are repugnant to the allegations in Count XXIII insofar as Mr. McKey’s status as individual or agent is concerned. We therefore reverse the final judgment of dismissal as it relates to him. This remaining question might be disposed of later on a proper motion; however, we cannot dispose of it at this juncture.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon Fam. P'rs, L.P. v. Apollo Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 852 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…court’s decision to deny a trial to a party to nonbinding arbitration after the filing of a timely motion for trial presents a question of law that can be determined as well by an appellate court as a trial court. Cf. McKey v. D.R. Goldenson & Co., 763 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding dismissal of complaint for failure to state a cause of action is a question of law reviewed on a de novo standard). In a related context, an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is generally reviewed on a de novo…
-
Jolene Trotter and John Smith v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 868 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…but the circuit court erred in refusing to allow Smith and Trotter to attempt to amend it. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We review an order of dismissal for failure to state a cause of action de novo. McKey v. D.R. Goldenson & Co., 763 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Trotter and Smith alleged that the sales contract and the finance contract violated the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, ch. 520, Fla. Stat. (2000), and the public policy of this state. Therefore, they claimed…
-
ALL Ins. Restoration Servs., Inc. v. Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…, 674 So. 2d 858, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)). Along with the complaint's allegations, "[w]e also review the exhibits to the complaint because they are considered part of the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss." McKey v. D.R. Goldenson & Co. 763 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) ("Any exhibit attached to a pleading must be considered a part thereof for all purposes."). Heritage contends that the allegations in the complaint, together with the attached insurance pol…
Authorities Cited
- W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Shelton v. Eisemann, 75 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1918)
- Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Milisav Kutlesic v. Guardianship OF Katia Kutlesic, 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Landrum v. Digger, 696 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Se. Med. Prods., Inc. v. Williams, 718 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)