43
Fla. L. Weekly D232aTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D232aTop of Form
Torts
— Contracts — Limitation of actions — Trial court properly dismissed
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and rescission, and fraud in the inducement
claims as barred by statute of limitation — Trial court erroneously found that
unjust enrichment count was barred by statute of frauds — Error to grant
motion to dismiss unjust enrichment count for failure to state cause of action
where dismissal would require consideration of matters beyond four corners of
complaint
— Contracts — Limitation of actions — Trial court properly dismissed
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and rescission, and fraud in the inducement
claims as barred by statute of limitation — Trial court erroneously found that
unjust enrichment count was barred by statute of frauds — Error to grant
motion to dismiss unjust enrichment count for failure to state cause of action
where dismissal would require consideration of matters beyond four corners of
complaint
CHRISTOPHER JESTER and DENISE
JESTER, Appellants, v. CAROL PAWLEY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D16-2641. L.T. Case No. 15-15660. Opinion filed January 24, 2018. An Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel:
Scott Alan Orth (Hollywood), for appellants. Martinez Morales, Raul Morales and
Aaron P. Honaker, for appellee.
JESTER, Appellants, v. CAROL PAWLEY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D16-2641. L.T. Case No. 15-15660. Opinion filed January 24, 2018. An Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel:
Scott Alan Orth (Hollywood), for appellants. Martinez Morales, Raul Morales and
Aaron P. Honaker, for appellee.
(Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.)
(EMAS, J.) Christopher and Denise
Jester seek review of the trial court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, all
claims against Carol Pawley.1 With the exception of one count —
for unjust enrichment — we affirm the order in its entirety.
Jester seek review of the trial court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, all
claims against Carol Pawley.1 With the exception of one count —
for unjust enrichment — we affirm the order in its entirety.
As to the claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (FDUTPA, Chapter 501, Florida Statutes (2016)), violation of sections
475.42(1)(e) and 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016) and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal without
further discussion.
fiduciary duty, violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (FDUTPA, Chapter 501, Florida Statutes (2016)), violation of sections
475.42(1)(e) and 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016) and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal without
further discussion.
As to the counts for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and rescission, and fraud in the inducement, the trial
court properly dismissed those claims against Pawley as they are barred by the
statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2016). See Canell
v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953); 940 Lincoln Road
Assoc., LLC v. 840 Lincoln Road Enters., Inc., No. 3D16-2748 (Fla. 3d DCA
Dec. 27, 2017); India Am. Trading Co. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2005); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA
1972).
misrepresentation, fraud and rescission, and fraud in the inducement, the trial
court properly dismissed those claims against Pawley as they are barred by the
statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2016). See Canell
v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953); 940 Lincoln Road
Assoc., LLC v. 840 Lincoln Road Enters., Inc., No. 3D16-2748 (Fla. 3d DCA
Dec. 27, 2017); India Am. Trading Co. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2005); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA
1972).
However, to the extent the trial
court concluded that the statute of frauds barred the unjust enrichment count
pleaded by the Jesters against Pawley, this was error, and we therefore reverse
the trial court’s order dismissing that count with prejudice.2 See Kolski ex rel. Kolski
v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ala v. Chesser, 5
So. 3d 715, 719-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Brace v. Comfort, 2 So. 3d 1007
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Harrison v. Pritchett, 682 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA
1996). We reject the additional arguments advanced by Pawley as a basis for
affirming the dismissal of the unjust enrichment count, as they require
consideration of matters beyond the four corners of the amended complaint and
its attached exhibits, and also present questions of fact unsuitable for
resolution on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. See
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Inv., LLC, 189 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 2016)
(holding that when a trial court “determines the sufficiency of a complaint to
state a cause of action, it applies the so-called ‘four corners rule,’ ” by
which “the court’s review is limited to an examination solely of the complaint
and its attachments”); Winter v. Miami Beach Healthcare Grp., Ltd., 917
So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding: “A trial court, when considering a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, “must look only to
the four corners of the complaint including the attachments; and the
allegations contained therein should be taken as true without regard to the
pleader’s ability to prove them”) (quoting Coriat v. Global Assur. Group,
Inc., 862 So. 2d 743, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).
court concluded that the statute of frauds barred the unjust enrichment count
pleaded by the Jesters against Pawley, this was error, and we therefore reverse
the trial court’s order dismissing that count with prejudice.2 See Kolski ex rel. Kolski
v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ala v. Chesser, 5
So. 3d 715, 719-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Brace v. Comfort, 2 So. 3d 1007
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Harrison v. Pritchett, 682 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA
1996). We reject the additional arguments advanced by Pawley as a basis for
affirming the dismissal of the unjust enrichment count, as they require
consideration of matters beyond the four corners of the amended complaint and
its attached exhibits, and also present questions of fact unsuitable for
resolution on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. See
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Inv., LLC, 189 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 2016)
(holding that when a trial court “determines the sufficiency of a complaint to
state a cause of action, it applies the so-called ‘four corners rule,’ ” by
which “the court’s review is limited to an examination solely of the complaint
and its attachments”); Winter v. Miami Beach Healthcare Grp., Ltd., 917
So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding: “A trial court, when considering a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, “must look only to
the four corners of the complaint including the attachments; and the
allegations contained therein should be taken as true without regard to the
pleader’s ability to prove them”) (quoting Coriat v. Global Assur. Group,
Inc., 862 So. 2d 743, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).
We reverse the trial court’s order
dismissing with prejudice the claim for unjust enrichment against Carol Pawley.
We affirm in all other respects the trial court’s order of dismissal.
dismissing with prejudice the claim for unjust enrichment against Carol Pawley.
We affirm in all other respects the trial court’s order of dismissal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded.
and remanded.
__________________
1The
amended complaint included counts against several other defendants, none of
whom are parties to this appeal.
amended complaint included counts against several other defendants, none of
whom are parties to this appeal.
2We express
no opinion as to what effect, if any, provisions contained in the parties’
contract may have on the Jesters’ unjust enrichment claim.
no opinion as to what effect, if any, provisions contained in the parties’
contract may have on the Jesters’ unjust enrichment claim.
* * *ottom of Form