L. C. MORRIS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN F. ALLISON AND DAVID JENKINS, AS TRUSTEE, 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.
L. C. Morris, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of four counts of its complaint involving alleged unlawful detention, conversion, and unjust enrichment related to limerock and equipment left on land. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of one count but reversed and remanded the other three counts, holding that they should be dismissed without prejudice to allow amendment rather than with prejudice.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the second count but reversed the dismissals of the third, fourth, and fifth counts with directions to enter dismissal orders without prejudice and with leave to amend, holding that defective pleading alone does not bar recovery when the underlying claims may be valid.
[1] A complaint is sufficient if it contains a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
[2] A trial court errs in dismissing a complaint with prejudice if it contains facts sufficient to indicate that a cause of action exists.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The counts are not artfully drawn. They are subject to an order of dismissal for the failure of the pleader to comply with Rule 1.110, R.C.P. 30 F.S.A. It does not appear, however, that appellant is barred from a proper presentation of its claims.”
Establishes that defective pleading alone does not bar relief if the underlying claims are potentially valid
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL. C. Morris, Inc. operated on land under an oral contract to excavate and remove limerock deposits. During this operation, Morris stockpiled limerock…
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 Unlawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a complaint containing five counts. The first count prayed for specific performance of an oral lease which was for a period of more than one year. That count was tried before the court and was ordered dismissed upon a finding that the prayed for relief was barred by the Statute of Frauds.1 The second, third, fourth, and fifth counts were set for jury trial. After the jury had been impaneled for trial, the court entered a judgment dismissing the last four counts. This appeal is from the judgment granting dismissal of those counts.
The appellant concedes in argument that the second count was properly dismissed, so we therefore affirm the order of the trial judge as to that count. The third count alleges that during the period that appellant was operating on the land under an oral contract to excavate and remove limerock deposits, it stockpiled lime-rock, and placed equipment and supplies on the land, all of which are now being unlawfully detained by the appellees. The fourth count alleges conversion by the defendants of the same limerock, equipment and supplies. The fifth count alleges an unlawful enrichman of the defendants because of appellant’s expenditure of labor and material. The counts are not artfully drawn. They are subject to an order of dismissal for the failure of the pleader to comply with Rule 1.110, R.C.P. 30 F.S.A. It does not appear, however, that appellant *29is barred from a proper presentation of its claims. See Bowen v. G H C Properties, Ltd, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 359.
Appellees suggest that the trial court found from the facts that appellant, by its conduct, was estopped to recover on its claims. Such a finding would require a proceeding upon the facts, and will not support a judgment dismissing the counts without further proceedings.
The judgment appealed is affirmed as to the dismissal of the second count; the judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to the third, fourth, and fifth counts is reversed with directions to enter an order dismissing these counts with leave to amend.
Affirmed in part; reversed in .part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lutheran Senior Citizens' Found., Inc. v. Schumacher, 355 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…or order of the court dated April 4, 1975, but in fact, added additional allegations. Florida courts have long held that a plaintiff may be required to amend or recast a complaint, disposing of burdensome allegations. L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 277 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Cook v. Katiba, 152 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In that appellant was ordered to streamline his pleading and failed to do so, the trial court, upon its discretion, had the authority to dismiss the second amended complaint. Se…
-
L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 353 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…uld prevail. We have concluded that the trial court erred in entering the judgment and that the jury verdict in favor of appellant should be reinstated. The prior history of the instant case on appeal may be found in L. C. Morris, Inc., v. Allison, 277 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and L. G. Morris, Inc., v. Allison, 309 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Except to the extent discussed herein, it is unnecessary for us to reiterate these proceedings. In L. C. Morris, Inc., v. Allison, 309 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 19…
-
L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, 309 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. The prior history of this case may be found in L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison, Fla. App.1973, 277 So. 2d 28. After the filing of a mandate pursuant to that opinion, the trial judge allowed the plaintiff Morris to amend its complaint to attempt recovery upon an allegation that it was entitled to repayment for monies expended in the improvement of the defen…
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
- Bowen v. GHC Props., Ltd., 251 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Sol Rovin v. Garfield, 207 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)