Chartrand v. Parsons

164 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6845, 2015 WL 2129304
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 8, 2015
DocketNo. 5D14-1038
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 3d 117 (Chartrand v. Parsons) 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
Chartrand v. Parsons, 164 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6845, 2015 WL 2129304 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

COHEN, J.

Israel Chartrand appeals a final order that dismissed his complaint against a myriad of individuals. In his pro se complaint, Chartrand alleged nine counts: (1) civil conspiracy; (2) conversion; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional alienation; (5) demand for accounting; (6) undue influence; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) appointment of a court monitor; and (9) review and removal of guardian.

Under the best of circumstances, Chart-rand would have difficulty meeting his burden of proof on these counts. Due to his incarceration in the Department of Corrections, these are not the best of circumstances for Mr. Chartrand. Perhaps recognizing this, the trial court sua sponte reviewed Chartrand’s complaint pursuant to section 57.085(6), Florida Statutes, and entered a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In the order, the court dismissed count four because it requested damages for a mental injury without a related allegation of physical injury, and the remaining counts because they were unlikely to succeed on the merits. See § 57.085(6)(c), (9)(d), Fla. Stat. (2014).

We affirm the dismissal with prejudice of counts: (1) civil conspiracy; (2) conversion; (4) intentional alienation; (5) demand for accounting; (6) undue influence; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Chartrand is unable to establish any legal basis for relief on those counts. We reverse and remand, however, as to counts: (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) appointment of a court monitor; and (9) review and removal of guardian. While facing an uphill battle, Chartrand should at least be given an opportunity to amend his complaint on those counts.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

ANGEL E. GASTON v. NNN INVESTMENT ADVISORS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 So. 3d 117, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6845, 2015 WL 2129304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chartrand-v-parsons-fladistctapp-2015.