LEROY E. TALCOTT, JR., AND DONALD ANDRUS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF ELLEN MORGAN HOLL, AND BILL COLSON, 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.
Appellants Talcott and Andrus sought declaratory judgment relief, but the trial court dismissed their complaint with prejudice on a motion to dismiss without stating the grounds for dismissal. The court reversed, holding that the complaint stated a sufficient basis for declaratory relief and that the trial court committed procedural error by dismissing without clarifying whether the dismissal was on the merits or on jurisdictional/procedural grounds.
The court held that the complaint was sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to a declaration of rights and that the trial court committed procedural error by dismissing with prejudice without stating the grounds for dismissal. The complaint should not have been dismissed because, when a motion to dismiss is filed, all well-pled allegations are admitted for purposes of the motion, and the test for declaratory judgment sufficiency is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights at all, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
“The decree of the lower court left counsel and this court entirely in the dark as to the grounds upon which the bill was dismissed. This should be avoided whenever possible. When a bill is attacked upon several grounds some of which go to the real merits of the controversy and some to jurisdictional or procedural questions, the parties have a right to know the reasons which motivated the action of the courts.”
Establishes the requirement that dismissal orders must clearly state the grounds for dismissal when multiple grounds are asserted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTalcott and Andrus filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment against Central Bank and Trust Company, as guardian of Ellen Morgan Holl's property, and …
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 Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Leroy E. Talcott, Jr. and Donald Andrus [appellants] sued the defendants below and sought a declaratory judgment.
One of the defendants filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Dismiss” and/or “Motion for Judgment” on the pleadings. The motion was based on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action but contained other grounds which could be construed as jurisdictional. The other defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the plaintiffs had failed to join an indispensable party. It also contained grounds which might be construed as jurisdictional.
The trial court, after a hearing on the motions, rendered a final judgment for the defendants which dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
The order of dismissal did not state the grounds upon which it was based. In May v. Holley, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 636, 637, the court made the following observations which are pertinent to the dismissal with prejudice of this complaint for declaratory judgment.
* * * * * *
“The decree of the lower court left counsel and this court entirely in the dark as to the grounds upon which the bill was dismissed. This should be avoided whenever possible. When a bill is attacked upon several grounds some of which go to the real merits of the controversy and some to jurisdictional or procedural questions, the parties have a right to know the reasons which motivated the action of the courts.
As used in the order being reviewed the words ‘with prejudice’ might mean that the court determined that the plaintiff had no enforceable rights with respect to the building in question, as ap-pellee construes it, or they might merely constitute an adjudication that plaintiff had not presented a case coming within the statute authorizing declaratory relief.”
******
The general rule stated in Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, In and For Dade County, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445, 448 is:
***** *
“The test of the sufficiency of a complaint in a declaratory judgment proceeding is not whether the complaint shows that the plaintiff will succeed in getting a declaration of rights in accordance with his theory and contention, but whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights at a.11. * * * ” See also 9 Fla.Jur. Declaratory Actions § 47.
******
It is fundamental that in filing the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants admitted, for the purpose of the motion, all well pled allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint. A reading of the complaint in this light indicates that it was sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to a declaration of the rights as to which they were allegedly in doubt.
*413The possibility [or even probability] that the proper interpretation of the agreement in question would result in an adverse decree to the plaintiffs does not preclude their rights to a declaratory decree. See Jackson Tom, Inc. v. Carlton, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 752. This opinion does not consider the merits of the controversy between the parties but simply holds that procedural error was committed by the trial court in dismissing this complaint with prejudice; under these circumstances.
This cause is, therefore, reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Floyd v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am., 415 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…rights and obligations of the parties. The possibility that a proper interpretation of the insurance policy would result in a decree adverse to plaintiffs does not preclude their right to a declaratory decree. Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 220 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceeding. . Appellees contend that the order dismissing with leave to amend is an order to amend and failure to comply is grounds for dismissal on the merits, appellate review of w…
-
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Appel v. Scott, 479 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights at all. Modernage Furniture Corp. v. Miami Rug Co., 84 So. 2d 916 (Fla.1955) (emphasis added). See also Mills v. Ball, 344 So. 2d 635, 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 220 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Broward County v. Lerer, 203 So. 2d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Tulip Realty Co. of Florida, Inc. v. Führer, 155 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Platt, 122 So. 2d at 50. The possibility that the court will rule adverse…
-
Conley v. Morley Realty Corp., 575 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…under the facts alleged”), cert. dismissed, 129 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1961). See also Bella Isla Constr. Corp. v. Trust Mortgage Corp.; Hildebrandt v. Department of Natural Resources, 313 So. 2d 73 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 220 So. 2d 411 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Johnson v. Thoburn, 160 So. 2d 729 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). Seller also argues in substance that the complaint was properly dismissed because buyer should instead bring a suit for damages. That contention is without merit, for the stat…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF N. Miami Beach v. Oska Realty Corp., 133 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Jackson TOM, Inc. v. Carlton, 133 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)