Baker v. Fender

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baker v. Fender

614 So. 2d 14, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1865, 1993 WL 38184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1640

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 14 (Baker v. Fender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Fender, 614 So. 2d 14, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1865, 1993 WL 38184 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

The issue on this appeal is whether the failure to give precise rather than approximate dates of alleged transgressions, in an action for tortious interference with an expected devise, constitutes a failure to state a cause of action. We hold that it does not and reverse.

Appellant’s lack of compliance with the trial judge’s order to plead — before discovery — with more specificity, is no basis for a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. A basic purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the over-all sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Augustine v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla.1956); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420. In ruling on the motion, it is inappropriate to consider the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce. N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FERGUSON, Judge.

The issue on this appeal is whether the failure to give precise rather than approximate dates of alleged transgressions, in an action for tortious interference with an expected devise, constitutes a failure to state a cause of action. We hold that it does not and reverse.

Appellant’s lack of compliance with the trial judge’s order to plead — before discovery — with more specificity, is no basis for a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. A basic purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the over-all sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Augustine v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla.1956); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420. In ruling on the motion, it is inappropriate to consider the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce. N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 14, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1865, 1993 WL 38184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-fender-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack