Dewitt v. U. S. Title Co. of Jacksonville

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dewitt v. U. S. Title Co. of Jacksonville

407 So. 2d 385, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21974

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1981

DocketNo. AD-301

StatusPublished

This text of 407 So. 2d 385 (Dewitt v. U. S. Title Co. of Jacksonville) 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

Dewitt v. U. S. Title Co. of Jacksonville, 407 So. 2d 385, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21974 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

There is no error in the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Counts I and II of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Count III, however, marginally states a cause of action by alleging that continuing the transaction described by other incorporated allegations, plaintiffs’ attorney on February 28, 1978, requested defendant U. S. Title to determine and report the existence of record covenants or restrictions governing construction on the property, and that defendant, undertaking to do so, negligently performed the duty undertaken, to plaintiffs’ subsequent damage. Whatever may be defendant’s affirmative defenses, and however difficult may be plaintiffs’ proof concerning the extent of defendant’s February 28, 1978 undertaking and plaintiffs’ damage sustained in reliance, those allegations withstand a motion to dismiss and require an answer. See Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co., 363 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

REVERSED.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

There is no error in the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Counts I and II of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Count III, however, marginally states a cause of action by alleging that continuing the transaction described by other incorporated allegations, plaintiffs’ attorney on February 28, 1978, requested defendant U. S. Title to determine and report the existence of record covenants or restrictions governing construction on the property, and that defendant, undertaking to do so, negligently performed the duty undertaken, to plaintiffs’ subsequent damage. Whatever may be defendant’s affirmative defenses, and however difficult may be plaintiffs’ proof concerning the extent of defendant’s February 28, 1978 undertaking and plaintiffs’ damage sustained in reliance, those allegations withstand a motion to dismiss and require an answer. See Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co., 363 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

REVERSED.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 So. 2d 385, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewitt-v-u-s-title-co-of-jacksonville-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack