BENJAMIN J. EVERIDGE, 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.
The court affirmed dismissal of breach of oral contract and fraud claims but reversed dismissal of defamation counts, finding those adequately pleaded the requisite elements.
Defamation counts adequately pleaded the required elements and should not have been dismissed, while breach of oral contract and fraud claims were properly dismissed.
[1] Defamation claims that plead the four required elements are not subject to dismissal on motion, with defenses to such claims properly raised separately.
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 intelligenceEveridge filed a fourth amended complaint against Advantage Venture Partners asserting causes of action for breach of an oral contract, fraud in the i…
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 Defamation Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin J. Everidge appeals a final order dismissing his fourth amended complaint with prejudice. Everidge argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint as it adequately stated causes of action for breach of an oral contract, fraud in the inducement, and defamation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
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. 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 Everidge’s fourth amended complaint except for counts III and IV for defamation. Those counts plead the requisite facts to establish causes of action for defamation. See Bass v. Rivera, 826 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (setting forth the four elements that must be pled in an action for defamation). 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 Ever-idge’s claims for defamation, but affirm the remainder of the order dismissing the other counts with prejudice.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verdon v. Dandan Song, 251 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…, this court must confine its analysis to the four corners of the complaint, draw all inferences in favor of the pleader, accept all well-pled allegations as true and review the question of law de novo. Everidge v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd. , 880 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The Torts of Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution Although abuse of process and malicious prosecution are two separate and distinct torts, they "have the common element of an improper purpose in the use of legal process,…
-
Manatee Cnty. v. Reardon, 884 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ppeals an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Gulf-view Park. The award was based solely on an order finding that Manatee County was in contempt for failing to issue a permit to Gulfview Park. We reverse because in Manatee County v. Reardon, 880 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), this court reversed the order finding Manatee County in contempt, concluding that the circuit court had never ordered the County to issue the permit in question. Accordingly, because the contempt order was the sole basis for the…
-
Ranieri v. Paincare Holdings, Inc., 889 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…view. Sobi v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 846 So. 2d 1204, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). An appellate court reviews an order dismissing an amended complaint, by looking at the four corners of the complaint. See Everidge v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd., 880 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fox v. Professional Wrecker Operators of Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also Dee v. Southern Brewing Co., 146 Fla. 588, 1 So. 2d 562, 563 (1941). Further, it is not the province of the appellate court to rew…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- FOX v. Prof'l Wrecker Operators OF Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Bass v. Rivera, 826 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)