ANNIE E. DREKA, A WIDOW; A. F. DREKA, AND MAXWELL DREKA,
v.
FRANCIS P. WHITEHAIR, J. GODFREY DREKA: DELAND BUILDING COMPANY, A CORPORATION; J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, AND G. A. DREKA & COMPANY
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of a bill of complaint, finding that the complaint, when its well-pleaded allegations were taken as true, possessed sufficient equity to proceed. The court's decision allows the case to move forward for further proceedings.
No, the trial court erred in dismissing the bill of complaint. The sworn bill of complaint, when its well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true, contains sufficient equity to proceed.
“After due hearing and consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the sworn bill of complaint is not entirely without equity.”
This quote establishes the court's primary finding that the complaint had sufficient merit to proceed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs filed a sworn bill of complaint, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss it. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, dismi…
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 Well-Pleaded Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court dismissing, on motion of defendants, plaintiffs’ sworn bill of complaint and denying plaintiffs’ motion asking for appointment of a special master and other relief.
After due hearing and consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the sworn bill of complaint is not entirely without equity. It is unnecessary at this time to consider whether or not the court below erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion but inasmuch as the order dismissing the bill is being reversed, the way is left open for the parties to take such action as they may be advised, consistent with applicable principles of law.
Taking all of the allegations of the sworn bill of com*803plaint, which are well pleaded, as being true, which must be done on motion to dismiss, the bill is not without equity, and the order appealed from must be and is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings. See City of Lakeland v. Ray, 114 Fla. 603, 154 So. 324; Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance Co., 115 Fla. 639, 155 So. 723; Mather v. Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, 132 Fla. 891, 182 So. 301; Adams v. Sanford Growers’ Credit Corporation, 135 Fla. 513, 186 So. 239.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, P., dissents.
Justice Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
(dissenting). — It appears to me that the allegations of the bill of complaint are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that they show no grounds for relief and that they fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute grounds for equitable relief against any of the defendants and certainly none against the defendant Whitehair. Therefore the order appealed from was without error.
Buford, J.
(dissenting). — It appears to me that the allegations of the bill of complaint are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that they show no grounds for relief and that they fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute grounds for equitable relief against any of the defendants and certainly none against the defendant Whitehair. Therefore the order appealed from was without error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Williams v. Jones, 326 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1975)…ject of ownership interest by a lessee, we find that, in the law of real property, it is well established that a valid lease for a term of years is a conveyance of an -interest in land. Flowers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co., 1939, 140 Fla. 805, 192 So. 321; Campbell v. McLaurin Investment Co., 1917, 74 Fla. 501, 77 So. .277. A lessee’s interest in a leasehold estate is thus stated: ‘During the life of a lease, the lessee holds an outstanding leasehold estate in the premises, which for all practical pu…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Walden, 210 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1968)…nt vs. White, 148 So. 2d 32 (Fla.App.2d Dist. 1962); Rogers vs. Martin, 87 Fla. 304 [204], 99 So. 551 (1924); Campbell vs. McLaurin Investment Co., 74 Fla. 501, 77 So. 277 (1917); and Flowers vs. Atlantic [*196] Coast Line Railway Co., 140 Fla. 805, 192 So. 321 (1939). “5. With one exception hereafter noted, all of the leased premises described in Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 (copies of the tax assessment rolls for 1963, 1964 and 1965) are and were at all times material hereto being used by the respective lessees…
-
State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. White, 148 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…bject of ownership interest by a lessee, we find that, in the law of real property, it is well established that a valid lease for a term of years is a conveyance of an interest in land. Flowers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co., 1939, 140 Fla. 805, 192 So. 321; Campbell v. McLaurin Investment Co., 1917, 74 Fla. 501, 77 So. 277. A lessee’s interest in a leasehold estate is thus stated: “During the life of a lease, the lessee holds an outstanding leasehold estate in the premises, which for all practical pur…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. Sanford Growers' Credit Corp., 135 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1938)
- Rhodes v. Edw. K. Tryon Co., 132 Fla. 880 (Fla. 1938)
- Mather v. Fla. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 132 Fla. 891 (Fla. 1938)
- City of Lakeland v. Ray, 114 Fla. 603 (Fla. 1934)
- Rice v. Phillips, 115 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1934)
- Lathers Land Co. v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 115 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1934)