INTERNATIONAL FUNDING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD KRASNER AND PEARL KRASNER, HIS WIFE, 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.
International Funding Corporation appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim alleging tortious interference with business relationships. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that IFC's amended counterclaim failed to adequately allege all elements of the tort, specifically the existence of particular business relationships that were allegedly interfered with.
No. The court held that IFC's amended counterclaim failed to include all elements of the tort of tortious interference with a business relationship, specifically failing to adequately allege the particular business relationships with which the Krasners intentionally and unjustifiably interfered.
[1] A counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship requires allegations of the existence of a business relationship, intentional and unjustified interf…
[2] A claim for tortious interference with a business relationship must specifically aver the business relationships of the claimant with which the defendant intentionally an…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship are (1) existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by defendant, and (3) damage to the claimant as a result of the breach of the business relationship.”
Establishes the three-part test required to plead tortious interference with a business relationship
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIFC executed a $253,000 purchase money second mortgage and note in favor of Harold and Pearl Krasner. IFC subsequently defaulted on monthly payments, …
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 Elements Of Tortious Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, International Funding Corporation (IFC), appeals an order dismissing its amended counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship in an action for a mortgage foreclosure instituted by plaintiffs, Harold and Pearl Krasner. IFC executed a $253,000 purchase money second mortgage and note in favor of Harold and Pearl Krasner, and IFC subsequently defaulted on the monthly payments. The Krasners then instituted the instant mortgage foreclosure action against IFC which filed an answer and counterclaim against the Krasners for tortious interference with its business relationships. After the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Krasners, IFC filed an amended counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship grounded upon the allegations that the Krasners had orally stated to officials of the Department of Insurance and a newspaper reporter that IFC failed to make the required payments on the note, that the note was in default and IFC was in financial difficulty. The Krasners moved to dismiss this amended counterclaim and after hearing argument of counsel, the court entered an order of dismissal. We affirm.
The elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship are (1) existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by defendant, and (3) damage to the claimant as a result of the breach of the business relationship. See Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
After a review of IFC’s amended counterclaim, we conclude that the allegations do not include all the elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship; in particular, the.failure to specifically aver the business relationships of IFC with which the Krasners intentionally and unjustifiably interfered.
Order of dismissal affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nitzberg v. Zalesky, 370 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ught damages for tor-tious interference with a contractual relationship. This court has most recently stated the elements of action of tortious interference with the business relationship in the case of International Funding Corporation v. Krasner, 360 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), as follows: “The elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship are (1) existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that re…
-
Wagner v. Nottingham Assocs., 464 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…er which the claimant has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by defendant, and (3) damage to the claimant as a result of the breach of the business relationship. International Funding Corp. v. Krasner, 360 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), quoted in Nitzberg v. Zalesky, 370 So. 2d 389, 390-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . We find no merit to any of the defendant’s contentions concerning the jury instructions. . A contractual relationship with a governmental body ma…
-
Peacock v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…tification is an unsettled issue in Florida. Compare Insurance Field Services v. White & White Inspection, 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fearick v. Smugglers Co., Inc., 379 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); International Funding Corp. v. Krasner, 360 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Symon v. Jay Rolfe. Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. den., 249 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971) (unjustified interference is part of the plaintiffs case) wi…
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
- Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)