KATHLEEN CROCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
SEAN MARKS AND JAMIE MARKS, HIS WIFE, 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 held that the complaint stated a cause of action and should not have been dismissed.
Appellant sued appellees alleging violations of property covenants and restrictions. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failur…
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 Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kathleen Crocker, filed her complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against appellees, Sean and Jamie Marks, alleging that appellees violated certain covenants and restrictions that applied to their property, a building in which both parties own residential units adjacent to each other. Upon appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In Bell v. Indian River Memorial Hospital, 778 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court stated the standard of review upon a motion to dismiss:
A motion to dismiss tests whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action. Because a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is an issue of law, it is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review. When determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, the trial court’s consideration is limited to the four corners of the complaint, the allegations of which must be accepted as true and considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Id. at 1032 (citations omitted).
We have reviewed the complaint and find that it does state a cause of action. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STONE, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jenkins, 899 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…delay in serving the defendant and granted the motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. It is from this order the State appeals. This court reviews an order on a motion to dismiss de novo when it concerns a question of law. See Crocker v. Marks, 856 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We must decide in this case whether the defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated and whether that violation resulted in prejudice to the defendant. “The purpose of the speedy trial rule is ‘to promote the efficient oper…
-
State v. Ashler Rishaud Taylor, 16 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…terial facts are not in dispute. Our review of the trial court’s order in this respect is, accordingly, de novo. See State v. Brabson, 7 So. 3d 1119, 1120-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State v. Williams, 918 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Crocker v. Marks, 856 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bell v. State, 835 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In conducting such a review we accord the State the most favorable construction of the evidence, and we resolve all inferences against the defendant. Only where the most favorabl…
-
Galante v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 895 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…th prejudice, relying on the undisputed compliance with the safe harbor provision of section 624.155(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), by USAA. Analysis A motion to dismiss presents a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. See Crocker v. Marks, 856 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Relying on Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1991), the appellants point out that a first party bad faith claim under section 624.155 does not accrue until the conclusion of the under…
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
- Bell v. Indian River Mem'l Hosp., 778 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)