LAURA DYE, APPELLANT,
v.
ADVANTAGE VENTURE PARTNERS, LTD., ET AL., 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.
Laura Dye appealed the dismissal of her second amended complaint against Advantage Venture Partners. The court affirmed dismissal of her fraud and piercing the corporate veil claims but reversed dismissal of her tortious interference and quantum meruit claims, finding those counts adequately pleaded the requisite elements.
The trial court properly dismissed the fraud in the inducement and piercing the corporate veil counts, but improperly dismissed the tortious interference and quantum meruit counts, which adequately pleaded the requisite factual elements for those causes of action.
[1] A trial court's order dismissing a complaint is reviewed de novo, confining the analysis to the four corners of the complaint and accepting all well-pled allegations as t…
[2] A complaint adequately states a cause of action for tortious interference when it pleads the requisite facts to establish the claim.
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“In reviewing the propriety of an order dismissing a complaint, we confine our analysis to the four corners of the complaint and accept all well pled allegations as true.”
Establishes the standard of review for dismissal motions in Florida appellate practice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDye filed a second amended complaint against Advantage Venture Partners asserting causes of action for fraud in the inducement, piercing the corporate…
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 Quasi Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Laura Dye appeals a final order dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. Dye argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint as it adequately stated causes of action for fraud in the inducement, piercing the corporate veil, quantum meruit and tortious interference. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In reviewing the propriety of an order dismissing a complaint, we confíne our analysis to the four corners of the complaint and accept all well pled allegations as true. Because the matter presents a question of law, we review the matter de novo. Fox v. Prof'l Wrecker Operators of Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Having carefully reviewed the complaint, we agree that the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice each of the counts in Dye’s second amended complaint except for count IX, tortious interference and count X, quantum meruit. Those counts plead the requisite facts to establish the causes of action. See Toledo v. Hillsborough County Hosp. Auth., 841 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (setting forth the four elements that must be pled in an action for tortious interference); Hull & Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 834 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (setting forth the requisite elements to plead a claim for quantum meruit/quasi contract). With respect to those claims, the matters raised in the appellees’ motion to dismiss are more appropriately asserted as defenses.
We reverse the order dismissing Dye’s claim for quantum meruit and tortious interference, but affirm the remainder of the order dismissing the other counts with prejudice.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
PETERSON, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t for calculating child support or explaining how the calculation was performed. This also requires reversal. See Guida v. Guido, 870 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing child support award for necessary income findings); Herring v. Ashby, 869 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing for income findings and explanation of method used in arriving at award). This is true even though there is no transcript of the proceedings below. See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). T…
-
Holaway v. Holaway, 197 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ld support owed to Wife. When a trial court fails to explain the calculations it used to arrive at the parties’ imputed incomes in determining an award of child support, this court has remanded to the trial court for clarification. Herring v. Ashby, 869 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In the instant case, the trial court imputed income to Husband without explaining its calculations. . . On the issue of the equitable distribution…
-
K.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…subsequently denied the motion and entered a final judgment terminating the Mother’s parental rights. This appeal followed. II. “Because the matter presents a question of law, we review the matter de novo.” Dye v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd., 869 So. 2d 630, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). On appeal, the Mother argues the general magistrate lacked authority to conduct the advisory hearing without a referral order from the trial court. She maintains that because the advisory hearing was conducted without judi…
Authorities Cited
- FOX v. Prof'l Wrecker Operators OF Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Hull & Co., Inc. v. Clair Thomas, 834 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Toledo v. Hillsborough Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 841 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)