C. G. J. CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK HURWITZ ET AL., 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.
C.G.J. Corporation appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss a complaint by co-tenants seeking specific performance and injunctive relief for alleged breaches of cooperative apartment purchase agreements. The court affirmed the denial, finding the complaint stated a valid cause of action for equitable relief.
The court held that the complaint stated a prima facie case entitling plaintiffs to equitable relief and that the plaintiffs, as tenants in common with a community of interest in the subject matter, possessed standing and sufficient commonality to adjudge their rights in a single decree, preventing multiplicity of suits.
“The effect of appellant's motion to dismiss, which was based upon the alleged failure to state a cause of action, is to admit the truth of all essential facts which are well and sufficiently pleaded.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss—all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs entered into agreements with Sol Engel to purchase pro rata interests in a 99-year lease, relying on his representations regarding construc…
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 Multiplicity Of Suits cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying its motion to dismiss. The appellees, plaintiffs below, filed their bill of complaint in which they alleged that each had entered into an agreement with the defendant Sol Engel to purchase pro rata interest in a 99-year lease which, at that time, was held by him but later assigned to the appellant. The complaint further alleged that these agreements were entered into in reliance upon certain representations made by defendant Engel concerning the manner of construction and furnishing of co-operative apartment units to be located upon the leased property. It was further alleged that they had performed all of the terms and conditions to be performed by them and set forth over forty instances in which the defendants had failed or refused to perform under the agreements, whereupon the plaintiffs prayed that the court enjoin payment to the defendants of certain sums of money held in escrow for their account; that the court enter a decree requiring the defendants to specifically perform all of the terms and obligations required under the agreements and further prayed that a lien be impressed against the improvements and the leasehold interest to secure performance by the defendants.
The effect of appellant’s motion to dismiss, which was based upon the alleged failure to state a cause of action, is to admit the truth of all essential facts which are well and sufficiently pleaded. Kooman, Florida Chancery Pleadings & Practice, § 93, and cases collected therein.
Having carefully considered the allegations of the bill of complaint, we conclude that a prima facie showing has been made entitling the plaintiffs to equitable relief. It is further apparent that the plaintiffs, all of whom are tenants in common of undivided interests in the 99-year lease, possess a community of interest and right in the subject matter of the suit. They are affected substantially in the same way by the acts of the defendants and seek the same remedy and, subject to appropriate proof, their rights can be adjudged in one decree, thereby preventing a multiplicity of suits. Pinellas County v. City of St. Petersburg, 116 Fla. 582, 156 So. 523. See Crane Co. v. Bradford Builders, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 116 So.2d 794.
The order appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…y any reasonable construction of the averments contained therein, a case is stated which will entitle the complainant to such equitable relief. Dugan v. Powell, 1926, 91 Fla. 1034, 109 So. 202; C. G. J. Corporation v. Hurwitz, et al., Fla.App. 1960, 123 So. 2d 44. [*445] The appellant raises questions of jurisdiction and venue. As ultimately-amended the complaint named only one defendant, the non-resident trustee who was served by publication pursuant to Fla.Stat. 48.01, F.S.A. This publication of a notice t…
-
Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…upon which relief can be granted. Rule 1.11(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the complaint, all well and sufficiently pleaded essential allegations must be taken as true. C. G. J. Corp. v. Hurwitz, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 44; Kooman, Florida Chancery Pleading and Practice, § 93; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 127, p. 283. The basis of liability upon breach of an implied warranty of fitness for the use and purposes intended is the undertaking or agreement, attributed by law,…
-
Hurwitz v. C. G. J. Corp., 168 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreements. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on appeal, this court affirmed the order of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss. See C. G. J. Corporation v. Hurwitz, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 44. After the cause was remanded to the trial court, the original complaint was amended several times, and finally became an action for damages based in the main upon the appellee’s alleged alterations and deviations from the plans and specifications…
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
- The Cnty. of Pinellas v. City of St. Petersburg, 116 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1934)
- Crane Co. v. Bradford Builders, Inc., 116 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Butler v. Bula E. Croker, 116 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1934)
- Mandis Dairy, Inc. v. Shepardson, 116 Fla. 557 (Fla. 1934)