Board of Trustees v. Montag & Caldwell, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Board of Trustees v. Montag & Caldwell, Inc.

821 So. 2d 1251, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10805, 2002 WL 1758287

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-4545

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 821 So. 2d 1251 (Board of Trustees v. Montag & Caldwell, Inc.) 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

Board of Trustees v. Montag & Caldwell, Inc., 821 So. 2d 1251, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10805, 2002 WL 1758287 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action its action seeking an accounting. Accepting the material factual allegations of appellant’s complaint as true, as we are obliged to do, see, e.g., Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we conclude that those allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for an accounting. See Armour & Co. v. Lambdin, 154 Fla. 86, 96, 16 So.2d 805, 810 (1944) (citing 1 C.J.S., Accounting § 19, for the proposition that an accounting is appropriate where a fiduciary relationship exists even if the accounts are not complicated, no discovery is sought, and there is a concurrent remedy at law available). Accord Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 778 So.2d 495, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the final order dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action appellant’s action for an accounting, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

KAHN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action its action seeking an accounting. Accepting the material factual allegations of appellant’s complaint as true, as we are obliged to do, see, e.g., Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we conclude that those allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for an accounting. See Armour & Co. v. Lambdin, 154 Fla. 86, 96, 16 So.2d 805, 810 (1944) (citing 1 C.J.S., Accounting § 19, for the proposition that an accounting is appropriate where a fiduciary relationship exists even if the accounts are not complicated, no discovery is sought, and there is a concurrent remedy at law available). Accord Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 778 So.2d 495, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the final order dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action appellant’s action for an accounting, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

KAHN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 So. 2d 1251, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10805, 2002 WL 1758287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-trustees-v-montag-caldwell-inc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack